Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 4 OF 7V. CHICO UNIFIED' SCgOOL "7" w rip, .;.STRICT 1163 EAST SEVENTH STREET" CHICO, CALIFORNIA 9,5928-5999 (916) 891-3004 RAY 5 1986 May 2, 1986 Omw coati Butte County Planning Department Attn: Laura Tuttle 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 SUBJECT: Draft E.I.R. for the B611-Muir Property Dear ME, . Tuttle The referenced development is located within the area served by Neal Dow Elementary School, Bidwell" Junior High School and Chico Senior High School. Based on the, average number of students per residential. unit; it is projected that this development would result in 62.69 ele-mentrary students, 26.79 junior high students and 26.7 senior high. students. Please be advised,, as pet Government Code Section 65973, the schools in the District are already overcrowded; however, Butte County Ordinance No; 2463 was enacted to enable the District to meet elementary housing needs and those needs shouldibe adequately met during the 1985.-36 school year. It is anticipated that the junior and senior high schools in the District will be able, in existing facilities, --to accommodate projected entollment-<increases during the upcoming year. The school overcrowding is substantiated `by comparing the. Districtts enrollment and increased numbers of students to be generated by proposed! residontial devlopment,,.� to the District's school capacity data School Fnroll'ment=-Capacity Comparison School Total School Enrollment Capacities Plus Projected Enrollment. Grade Lev4l (Students) From Proposed Developments Dlfference Kindergarten 1,026 1149,3 (467) 1-6 4,476 7,469 (2993) 7-9 2,388 3,6811 1"0-1.2 .20702 3p635 ( 933 )' MAY 1 1986 May 16, 1986.,O►&A Califon To: Butte County Planning Depart meat Att'n: Ms. Laura Tuttle From: Cussick Area Neighborhood Council Subject: Questions and Comment Re: Bell-Muir Environmental Impact Report. The ;Council is pleased to have the opportunity to transmit its zeactions to the draft EIR whose conclusions would have definite impacts on our primaryarea of concern. EIR 'PAge_ Number Comment 2-5 We strongly concur with the mitigation pro- posed for narrow, sub-standard, roads. 2-6 We agree with mitigation measures proposed with respect to 'the western extension of Eaton Road. We suggest that access to the proposed extension from the south should be limited to one point, e.g., Rodeo or Guynn to provide ser- vice access for the subject area but not sub- 'regional traffic service. 2-7i - _ We agree strongly with the proposed mit- - -- 2•�8) tic' gation measures for storm water run off se p; 2-9) tank use, and for a planned sewage ;line e;xten- cion into areas where future densities mandate such facilities. 2-10 We concur with mitigation treasures proposed for fire p-eotecton. Commentary regarding school facill tl es ex- pansion is inadequate as it provides policy' making bodies no guidance and ignores the purpose of this EIR. 2-11 We concur with the proposed roads policy, 2-12 We agree strongly with mitigation measures proposed for Library funding, A strong, adequate ly funded library system is essential for edu- cation of future eneratio as well as education the present adult and cultural enri gchment of the papulation in the Chico area Comments In the draft tagard'ing "recreation- al facilites need to be expanded to directly speak to such needs in the largor area west of . the Esplanade and' north of Lindo Channel." It is COnceivabl.e that one or more such facilities might properly be located within the study area, and should therefore be planned for. � , _., � 'i ' �,,� � ' � }. il? State of California Businesa, Transportation & Housing Agency MEM'0RAYIDUM To, State Clearinghouse Date: May 9, 1986 -Office of Planning and Research Attention Pariia Milligan File: 03 -But -32/99' 1400 Tenth Street P.M. 6.3 Sacratr,--nto, CA 95814 Bell -Muir GPA SCH No. '84061909 From: DEPARTMENT OF TRIUSPORTATION - Telephone ATSS 457-4498 District 3i P. 0. Box 911, Marysville, CA 95901 Caltrans, District 3, has reviewed the draft EIR for the Bell -Muir General Plan Amendment and revision of the Chico Area Greenline. The site lies between Bell. Road and Highway 8�. No specific development plans are,proposed at th's time. Figure 3.2-2 sho<astwo ne,4 interchanges on Highway 95, one at Lassen Avenue and one at East 5th Avenue, as recom.1412nded improverments for Ail! wild-aut. There is not sufficient room betWeen existing interchanges at either location to allow construction of additional interchanges. These imprtlS_- nts are not physically possible. The E12 references the Di, P ''t's' Route Concept Report for gighwty 32 by sLat.ing that the report Ivends widening Highway 32 to three lanes in this vicinity. f ate Concept Report actually reatmmends widening to four lanes wl fele lanes and left turh pockets' This project is at the bo f the District's top ten priorities ,. for cons ruction between ;nd 1955. � ,,. Rage 3.2-17 states that "appropriate funding will be acquired from NWA and Caltrans...n.. Given current funding shortfalls, this is riot a realistic sa7.uf, an. Funding may become available for those high priority projects . eoadwa i rovem..nts . eliedlUpon 'i of NgYiway 3_. No,aever, otherana pmeht Plan saQY� as�the � upon in the identified in the S stem M g , i FIR are not scheduled for Stet.. and/orpFederal funding in the foreseeable future. tyle recoieend the County in cooperation with the to Chico- �mu consider l�tive mto pactsnce long-range measures necessary Leilkl "-'��`j�'�r�_� �: �'►�+ ! 5 185 ' Stotcf of Cor:fa: bio THE RESOURCES AGENCY :OF CALIFORNIA Memoranldu mt To : Dr. Gordon F. Snow Date MAY 1 1986 ou rceS assistant Secretary Subject: Draft Environmental :for Resources, NIs. Laura Tuttle Impact Report, Belt County of Butte Muir GPA "84.45; 7 County Center Drive SCH 84061904 Groville, CA 95965 Firm Department if Conservation—Office of the 'Director The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring, farmland conversion on a statewide basis. The Department also administers the California Land, Conservation ;(Will. amson) Act.. -We-have reviewed Butte County's Draft Environmental Impact Report .(DEIR) for the project rctcr cnced' above and have noted that the proposal Would involve the conversion of prime agricultural land'r The Department, thercforc, offers the fol loWing comments. Th proposal would involve approximately 400 acres of agricultural land vthich is currently outsidethe Chico Grecnline (urban' 0cVclop.men't bodridary), It proposes the extension of the greenline to include the project arca within the current development area, and the conversion of approKimately 270 acres of land to 270 'l -acre, homcsitcs. It is not elear fVom the DEIR what additional agricultural land conversion may result ;as a secondary impact of the project_ The DEIR notes (page 3.1-1) that thcrc arc a number of economic factors- ,, which affect the viability of agricuitura] operations in the project area: YI'c question the emphasis on the negative economics of a;gricu ItoraI 0peraIibhs in the absence of more quantitative and qualitative detail on the 'economics of current agricultural production. Also, We concur with %'ottr comment (page- 3.1-10, which suggests that the project would magnify and transfer problems related to nuisance to adjacent agricultural lands: We, recommend that the Final Environmental Impact Report: (FEIR) address the issue of long-term farmland conversion impact, by including the following inft;rmatan. o The agricultural character of the area �.5vered by the project' and of nearby or surrounding lands which may be affcctotd' by the _ conversion process. Types and relativeyields of crops grown, Availability and quality of irrigation water. o Farmland Conversion Impacis type and arrtuunt or ftrmlantl co tatton�nof the n�proJect, would The t nvc.rs that result` in nearby areas from Implemcn ` in- eludingThe proportion of the County's tot this potential crop yields that would be lost, a'l c ► is cone ' Version would rcprdWit:D� r'r+� � !�"t�fi �:►+rid �1,,,,�.iYru rw��h� Or, Snow and Nis. Tuttle 1°"IL+C The proportion of the County's total acrcagc of those crops currently grown at the, propmcd site that this conNIcrsion would rcprescitY The growth inducing impact of the plan on other farmland in this arca of Butte County. The cumulative impact of the plan on other farmland in the project area, as well as on ;Butte County as .a whole. We note that the discussion of proposed mitigation measures for the impact of the loss of agricultural land fall's to identify any feasible mitigation,' We suggest a careful identification of mitigation measures would be useful. and necessary for the 'FEIR. Mitigation measures and alto natives that would lessen the agricultural land conversionimacts p of this project arc: q quality Conversi�?n of non -farmland' to new farmland of a uis�aient and quantity elsawhert in the area. w Protection or other, existing, farmland through the use of winiamson Act contracts. p i g g to orr5et Use or scthachs, buffers, and r� ht -to -farm ordinances- nuisance impacts or urb,t,i uses on nci h b o r i n agrrcuItura'i p erations and vice versa, The Department appreciates the opportunity to Comment on the DE R. d hope that- the farmhand p tiI ad uate co ntract issues are _6vcn q consideration in the, FEl' Ic�sc reel fret to calm impact- and 1,i1Ram IC Act caco be or fttrthcr assistance, R me at (916) 3r._ 5873. Dennis J. O'Brvant EnVironincntal Program Coordinator i 4"k Y T, Stephen Oliva, Manager, �.anc1 Gonscrvatio Unit - ` NITRATE ACTION PLAN I� GREATER CHICO URBAN AREA 1. Butte County City of Chico 2t March 5, 1985 3, 4 � 1. PROBLEM STATFKfEHT.. M Nitrate levels exceeding the 45 mg/l drinking Hater standard .$_- have been fou' n shallow, domestic well water in certain areas aro ` and 7 the city. Such high nitrate levels can cause Methemoglobinemia. in 8 infants less than six months of age. The excessive nitrate concentra- tion indicates that, existing or potential widespread water quality problems exist xn thf� Chico area groundwater,. Presentlg4 only ].1 the shallow zone aquifer is affected, Septic tank.dispaaal of : +t2 domestic: wastes and 'urban storm water run-off have been listed 13 as the most contributorq and the most controllable sources of nitrates. 14tal Other sources also contribute to the to nitrate levels, but 15 they are less controllable. 16: Should additional information become available as a result 7 17 of monitoring or other sources which would indicate a change in .8 this. Action Plan, such change will be requested of the Central 13 ,' Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 90 It. ACTION PLAN GOAL i To.pzrevent the further degradation and to minimize the existing, 92 nitrate problian in "the grouhdwater of the Greater Chito Urban. Area 2 . " as shown on the attached asap (:exhibit tA0and ad jadent areas. T5 2g Wage 1 of - 8' IIx. OBJ FMIVES A. City, and comity will review existing land use designations and development densities within the Greaten Chico; Urban Area 2'Sf and agree upon a Unified Land Use Designation ;cud Development 3 j Density Plan {i)by July 1, 1985 (2). 4 B City, and.county will develop a Sanitary Sewerage Plan (3) y 5 (hereinafter referred to as Sewerage Plan) and a Storm Drainage 6 (hereinafter :referred to as Drainage: Plan) for. the Greater Chico y 1, 1985. 7 1Jrban Area b 'July 8 The Sewerage Plan will, include. 9 (1) The area to be served and the standards and zegtirements for the sanitasew 10 r �y erage facilities. ll (2) The area to b�� served by septic tanks. Said plan shall 12 designate the land use and the maximum densities for said non-severed area. l4 (3) A time schedule .for requiring q rang the elimination cr:. septic tanks - and connection to saad sanitary sewerage y s.i. 16' 17 (1} Currently, there are minor differences between the General Plans which have been adopted by the city and county for the Greater Chico Urban is Area. Further, the development density :yet by .zoning, in some instances isnot consistent with the General Plan land.use designation. 19 (2) Since IIIA will not be completed prior to the preparation of the 20 Sewerage and Drainage Plana, these pla.n,s will provide for alternative designs which ret.ogz ize both the ejtiating land use designations 21 by the 'city and county. 2 (3) a sew er h. i3o 1984i the feasib Butte County f�authorized feasibility study fora, portion, ofthen northwestern Chico 2new 3 area with a netrunk sewer line from the Treatment Platit. Much of the area generally south of Lassen Avenue and e6at of SM 12 can be 24 served by the existing sewer lines of the citpe The county study will be used to assist the city/county effort in the development of the 25 Sewerage plan for the Greater Chico"1Urban Area. 28 'age 2 of I'll: ti The ordinance became efective on August 2, 1984 and is being enforced by the County Division of Environmental Health. (2) City will --dopt a similar ordinance and/or resolution by May 1, 1985 and assign enforcement t,R the County a Division of 1 I Environmental Health. 2 C. City i and county will establish by January 1 1986 a :,,.able for: - !. (1) The construction and installation of sewerage and drainage facilities for all to be served by said: facilities .properties within the Greater Chico Urban Area. C 7 (2) The connection of properties to said facilities. (3) The eiminatan and destruction of existing drainage. wells 9 and septic tank systems; 10 D. City and county will establish by May 1i 1985 standards and 11 conditions for issuance of a.permit for temporary leachfield' 12 type storm drainage systems() w::th criteria which will set forth �I 13 when such a system may be -used, 14 1 () As a tond'ion of granting said permit,, the ;propertp ovners at 15 will be required to install all drainage facilities to the _ - 16= boundary of the project ,area (�I so as 'to make connection. to 17 the drainage facilities when. said 'facilities have been ]` installed in accordance with the adopted Drainage Plan. 19 (6)Temporary leachfield 'type stortu drainage 'systems are those which 20 eiispose of storm water by any means other than into a natural drainage 21 channel or public storm drainage system. 22 (7) Boundaries of the project area means the limits 01 all property involved in the development including parcel limits and all adjacent streets23 . 24 25 26 ►_-1.. .-...... ... ,. -.,. :.,: ., '....iii Page 4 of 8 -. _.. . _'__ -- _�-_ '...-.. ........i .._._.,. ...,. .. .:,. _.... ....... ;r B. City and county will require connection to the sanitary sewer" . C facilities when said facilities are availablet8), F. Cityand count q will allow new development in accordance with the 1 Unified UnLand Use'and Development opment Density Plan when septic tanks 2 3 are to be utilized until sanit ary sewer service is available. Said septic tanks shallly e allowed when they meet the .criteria as set 4 � forth in Exhibit 'B' and subject to the following conditions _5 6 (1) Property owner shall execute awritten-covenant to be 7 recorded against all property within the development, agreeing 8 not to ptotest any sanitary sewerage and/or drainage assess - 9 m ent levied pursuant to an assessment district or service 10 ' area and also agreeing to connect such 'development to the 1'1 sewer and drainage facilities constructed and installed as 12 Part of said district or service area, all at such: owner's sole cost and expense(9), l 14 2 Property owner shall ) Prig ert 11 install all .:sewerage facilities to the 15 boundary of the project area '(see footnote 7) so as to 'malts 16� connection to the sewers e facilities wh g en said facilities 1.7 have been insta-Lled in accordance with the adopted. ;Sewerage lei Plan. l,g 20 (8), Sewer service shall be considered available except when: (a) The 21 expected project sewage flow is ,less than 10{}00 gallons 22 per day and the project does not meet the connection requirements of Butte County Code Section 15-14, 23 (b) 116 expected project sewage •flow is over 1,000 gallons per day { and a review of a complete engineering report indicates that' it is not practical and feasible to 24 seder the. project. Such determination shall be made with the. concurrence of the Cent 11 Vat ]ey Regional Water Ouality Control Board. 20 2B (9) The above is subject to the appropriate ubl.xc esti p " tits finding by resolution that said sanitary sewerage it, dVor drainage assessment district ori ervi r_e area is necessary � n order to protect the public health;. Page 5 of 8 (3) Property ower may submit a plan for development to permit smaller parcels in accordance with the Uniform Land Use I,! 1! and Development Density Plan which 'Plan shall limit develop:-- 1 ment to the sewage disposal requirements set forth above' 2 hi until sanitary sewer facilities are available. 3' i (4) Property owner shall be required to hook-up to a water source 4 which is acceptable to and approved by the Butte County 5 - Division of .Environmental health. 6 y implement the following monitoring and G. Count will continue to �.m l 7 8 education program: (1) Beginning November 1, 1984, the Environmental Health' 9 � Division of the county initiated a monitoring program for the 1Q shallow gone waters of the area. Twenty-two Wells will be 11 1<; monitored,every six months. In addition, the Department of 15- Water Resources will molitor six wells as part- of its ongoing-,, 14 program. The. monitoring program, over a. period of time, will P help p evaluate the effectiveness of the Action Plan. (2;) The County Health Officer has sent notification toh s p icians y 1B in the county informing. than of the high nitrate problem in 17 l.8 the shallow lone water in the Chico area and asking therm to be on the lookout for Methemoglobineamia symptosis, 13 2Q The Health Department will continuean educational program zl advising "residents that.they may have their wells tested and 22. to obtain an alternative source of drinking water for '93 infants if their wells show a nitrate level, in excess of 24 45 mgi per liter. 26 Page 6 Of 8 E. IBIT "B'' (As amended by Minute Order #28-85 adopted 5/7/85) STANDARDS FOR THE)N OV SEPTIC TANKS UNTIL SANITARTISEWER SERVICE IS ILABL (1)p g disposal require- will be allowed if 5,t iil'PetS the sewage di.s o ments for single: family, residential development of Appendix VII o£ ments the Butte County Improvement Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps* and Site Improvements pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code dealing with minimum useable lot, area's (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 exceed an application rate of 1,000 gallons yer acre Per day. Sewage generation rates shall be as determined by County Environmental Health: (3) upon completion of the Sanitary Sewerage Plan and the establishment of a timetable for the extension of sewers into areas, the above requirements may be revised, depending upon the time lag before sewers could be made available, to permit a greater density o development:: 4 Notwi.thstanding anything hereinabove to the contrary pursuant "California Regional 'Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Division Resolution #85-195 concerning the Nitrate Action Flan, Greater Chico Area, 'Butte County'; the California Regional later Quality Control 'Board reserves the•right to review any, City/County subdivisions which could adversely affect groundwater:_ Page 8 of 8 TABLE 2.1-1. SUt24ARY OF PROJECT _IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION MASURES IMPACT (Significance After ` (Significance) Mitigation) LAND. USE.PLANNING, APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES T'ne proposed project would encourage the development of approximately 270 Not mitigtble. ('S) :1= new dwelling units in an area of prime agricultural laced. Loss of this agri• cultural land would represent a 0.375 percent decrease in the total amoubt of county land used for fruit and but production. This incremental loss and other incremental losses would be considered a significant cumulative impact at the regional, state and national level. (S), The proposed project Vould increase The City of Chico and Butte w- unty the frequency and magnitude of adverse should support the Chico Area land use compatibility impacts with Gredbline policy by requiring that: , agricultural activities to the north 1) an Agricultural Use ,Notice be. and west.` (S) applied to parcels within 200 Peet y of the Greenline (refer to Butte <County Code Sections 26-6, 3$-1, 34-2 34-3.abd 34-6-12) 2) neer urban' developmeht within 200 feet of the GreeFnline be set back to the maxi- mum feasible distance cons stent With' the, applicable zoning district requirements (cluster design:;_ -should be encouraged to achieve thin objective), and 3) specific performance criteria be met by agricultural operations. Examples of» performance criteria include , the following: - Noise generated by farm equip+.» merit should not exoeed the $ Significant. (Adverse)NS PS Potentially Significant (Adverse) 2' Not Signifidant (Adverse) Beneficial ju (CONTINUED) i TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMA3RY OF PROJECT I14FACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATIONMEASURES IMPACT (Significance After (Significance) Mitigation) set by applicable city and county noise standard noise generation exceeding 70 LMAx dBA at tho 'Greenline should not be conducted between the hours of 10t (20 P.M.- and 7:30 A.M. , and -physical- harriers should be encouraged in all cases and' should be required sphere conditions would be expected to exceed tolerable limits. (NS) The proposed project would' alter This impact is the subject 'of this planned land uses in the project area. Enviromental Impact Report. The rws+,tlting pattern of land use Measures to improve infrastructure designations would not be considered and services are proposed in o't'her logical or stable." The subject site yections of this report to 'improve appears to: be consistent with the five consistency with, zoning and site designation criteria for the development criteria, Fpe example: proposed land use designation; but adequate fire protection would be -- appears to be inconsistent with_ provided with the proposed conditional zoning and development mitigation. (PS) criteria. (PS) Development in the project area would Not mitigable. (S) not-`be consistent with the city's ib- tent to encourage development in other locatic:js in the Chico Urban Area. (S) The Amendment of the Chico Area Not mitigable, (S) Gr-eenline V6Uld foster population growth and world remove a constraint on FXoWthL in the project area..5' The proposed General Plan Amendment ,Bone required or reconm(nded. B) would increase the supply of Pnd competition among higher priced residential units: (B) Significant g Not ."ign ficant (Adverse) PS y Significant (Adverse)NS 13 Sener'icial (CONTINUED 2-5 a D), SUMMARY OF PROJECT It3PACTS AND MITIGATION TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUE HEAS.'2ES MITIGATIONMEASURES IMP,%CT ( Significance After (Significance) Mitigation) ------------- The applicants should be required to contribute funds for the instal- lation of traffic signals at the >_ following intersections (East/Nerd, East/Guynn, East/Cussick, and East/Alemo) :, Th1. total cost for - these improvements is expected to ho approximately $40,125.; The con.- tribution is a pro rata share based on the projects traffic increment compared to the total traffic volibe. The applicants should be required to contribute funds for wid East Avenue to allow for Tanes. (central continuous left n lane). This requirement would involve a 13 foot widening from Alamo half Way to Guynn and a 26 foot,- Widening from SR .32 half way to Guynn. .Sidewalks; curbs and gutters would not be requir(i of the Applicants,, but a pro rata contribution ofunds (based on traffic) for a -storm drainage culvert would be required. The; fatal cast, for:: these 'improvements is expected for 'be $132,643• (i S) Access b emergency `vehicles (large �'. Se0. previous mitigation measures interbdtLjon realignment. (NS) five trucks) would be hindered by for unconventional. intersections.- (NS) The proposed, pYbject Mould allow -The applicants should be required development along narrow substandard to Wprove roads in the project to the standard eet by the roads. (PS) area Bunte County Planning Commission S Significant (Adverse) NS Not SiSnifieant (Adverse,) " Ps Potentiaclly Significant (Adverse) B Beneficial (CONTINUED) 24 2-8 L TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OFPROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION, MEASURES MI TIGATION MEASURES IMPACT (Significance After t (Significance) Mitigation) and Board of Supervisors. Ibe applicable standard would be SRS-1 if 'the county requires minimum parcel sizes equal to or gr ea ter than 1.001 acres (rural development' standards) . The applicable stand- ard for 1.0 acre parcels and m4lban, standards is RS-2, rich includes sidewalks, curbs and gutters (storm drainage infrastructure). The timing for the required improve- ments standards sho'ald bd determined by the ;3utte County , Public Works Director. Improvements to the folk+ging roadway segments should be com- pleted. with,, buildout of the area. Muir, from SR 32 to Belli Rodeo frcm H-di:-r to Hensheu, Nord, Guynn and Alamo from Bell to East and ,Henshaw from Nord to Alamo. jhe City of Chico would request .that, these � roadways meet standards ,-of, '.tha:_.city or county, whichever Are, more, stringent,,, The,. total cost .is:<,expected ; to be approximately $1,,1?1,125 .tYS achieve the SRS-1 standard. and,�2,262,825 to achieve .the, RS-2< standard. (NS') ':Tne' proposed''project would haus an, Butte County and the City of chic incremental", impact on area gide should acquireappropriate funding traffic. conditions. (iiS) from developers MA and CALTRANS for long, range traffic improvement programs as required by the County Circulation Element and CATS: (Ng) S Significant (Adverse) )IS Not Significant (Adverse) PS Potentially Significant (Adverse) B Beneficial (CONTINUED) 2-8 TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OP ;PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT (Significance After (Significance) Mitigation) ation) g bikeways meet with East Avenue. Special attention shot be given to safe crossings near J. Partridge Elementary School. (NS) GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY Site sois and gefology present 'a Specific engineering design and moderate shrink/sWell potential, construction techniques recom- moderate allowablie soil pressure, mended by the soils engineer should ;low erosion potential, and seismic '�e incorporated, as needed, into 4 hazards. (FS). the a"fect design. Building design :glould comply with seismic requirements of the current Uniform Building Code and the Reoo=ended Lateral Force tegttirements prepared' by the Structural Engineers Association of California. Standard construction>methods and erosion control measures should be implemented, (including, dry weather season grading) erosion control Plats, revegetation, and devices to retain' sediment within the con- streiction area) to minimize potentiaa erosion impacts. Foundation oupports and utilities should be designed to resist and withstand earthquake induced grtuftd shaking, (NS) Detre . Itipment of the site Would increase TZf "real standards (5RS-1 Roadways) the amount of stormvater runoff are required for site development generated in the project area and Mould a batural storm drainages=system incrementally reduce the amount of should be utilized and individual groundwater irifiltration, (95) re"ri.ew of bUbdivisions and'site Not (Significant (AdtTerse) Significant (Adverse) PS Potentially ' g B Beneficial 6490 (CNTINUED) TABLE 2,1-1 (CONTINUED),: SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMi'ACTS MID MITIGATION MEASURES . I MITIGATION MEASURES IMPACT (Significance After (Significance) Mitigation) PUBLIC SERVICES, A11D UTILITIES Development of parcels allowable under, A minimum of one new well and a - water system will be the proposed project would require 86,1100 gallons of water ;per day. (PS) pressurized required 3n the area. All Gal shall be met. Water requirements The required well and water system swill coat approximately `775,000: (NS) The proposed project would indirectly Septic tank systems should be allow additional sewage to be generated installed in the project area. E.ach system should mekat the in the project area. (PS) standards and requirements of the Nitrate Action Plan and, the County Health Department. If .septic tanks cannot meet the standards and reQUirements of the Nitrate Action Plan and County Health Department its the futures a trunk line should be extended to_ theproject area.€raw the Chico Vater Pollution Control Plant. The, cost .for , sucix. aneMtensionand tor. service to the project area (.including a treatrmeht-01 ant ex - pan ion-fee)°would be approximately. $3,1900500•, An Assessment District, shpttld be established to c0MPShs4te the, applicants for. providing seiner-,-� capacity to parcels in,�the project:, vicinity. (H5) Development of additional residential Butte County should consider cumu-- for services Uses should incrementally increase the (PS) lative demands police and develop an appropriate funding demand 'for police services: S Significant (Adverse) NS Not Significant (,Adverse) PS, Potentially 53gnificant { Adverse) B Beneficial ., (CONTINUED 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 mould create a significant fire safety `hazard. (8) MITIGATION MEASURES (Significance After Mitigation) mechanism, such as an asoe 3sment district:. to maintain future level of service standards. (The feasibility of this mitigat=on measure is questionable beaause recent efforts by the count; to raise revenues for this purpose xa,-,ve been deni .•d by voters. ; Butte County M%hould require developers of �;he project area to pay for the indpemental impact ($28,600) per y0ar on police services created by the proposed. General Plan Amendment. (P5) Butte County will collect $75 ;per new parcel in the "test Chico 'Fire' Station Benefit Areab to gain funds to build a new fire station that will serve the project area. tUtt'er County 'should seep additional volunteers to operate Station 42 until Station 45 is canstructed IMPAC, (Significance) The capacity, of Neal Doig School would be exceeded with the addition of the students expected to be generated by development in project area. (S) New residential development in the Project area mould increase storm Water, runoff and the demand for drainage capacity. (PS) The project would increase the demand for road maintenance on underdeveloped. roadways in the project urea. (.PS) S Significant (Adverse) MITIGATION MEASURES (Significance After Mitigation) Project area developers should.be. required to place a notation on final naps when filed stating that the issuance of residential building permits, mobile home instal:latune or hookup permits for residential dwelling units is subject to the payment of school fees pursuant to 'Butte County Ordinance No. 2463 and Resolution 21o. 85-40-. The current fee structure wouldgenerate $168, r 50 for 270 duelling units With five to six roamb each (gee Appendix 16.10). Holtever, the current fee struet i a does .not Provide sufficient revenue and may be increased by October, 1985. The school &Strict has stated that the proposed increase_.. is fees would..mitigate project related impacts. In addition, the school district is interested -in negotiating with " project applicants! Por ladedication for a neer school site in lieu of the fixed fee (Hensley, 1986). (PS) Seb mitigation for Geology and ;Hydrologio impacts. Butte County should implement the Circulation Nl ebdnt Policy to develop a, system of off site CJS Not Significant (Adverse) 0 ent ally Significant (Adverse) 13 Begeficial I. 7*71, TABLE 2:1-1 ('CONTINUED). SUtO1.ARX OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES t5„ . 4! .' s, .fly+. MITIGATION MEASURES a4 I14PACT' ( Significance Al ter (Significance) Mitigation) development fees and or develoxment agreements for road, construction ". and maintenance to allow project area roadways to be widened and '0. r upgraded as fut, Wye develcpuant occurs. -The ani ml: road. mainten- ance fee would be,approximately $7;627. (NS) Developmental d under the proposed Novae feasible. (S) project. Would incrementally,increase the demand for lirrary, services which,r already operating below adequatenate ' service levels. The proposed project Mould have a Butte County should adopt a funding1;1 minor incremental, impact on parks and program for .parks and recreation, recreational facilities which would be facilities as part of the Natural cumulat eelsignificant. (PS) Resources and Recreation ' of the County General Plan. (PS) µ� d , 's 1' S Significant ( AdversiO NS Not Signif'i.canct ( Adverse) PS Potentially Sghfie'+.nt ::(Adverse). B Benef icibi]. it / JANE DOLAI W44111CO 3ECC*)V1STA:Cr -Z-. ��:� YLIi�:�i► •S P, O !OX 7:0¢-CWCO CAWOkMfE fit" _ April 29s 1986, l would ask that the Board direct staff to inform the Regional Water Quality Control Board that the Board views icplementation of the provisions of the Nitrate Action plan along the following prfori;ti'es. RECEIVEb comunitarca;ter system throughout the urban 5 9 an 1, Extensionto Board of 5upervfsor:s nigh County of Butte �, tivy n it -wt P5 `County tenter Drive ,rr"`' '" This will entail information- from acid the - CbbperatioA of - u Orovilte, Cb 9$965 the bre water purveyor in the cotrtunity, Cal Water, It taay Otr utak dry 4van the tounty will need to request the Assistance of the r cr ctilco Dear Board Members: BY P.U;C, in 1>-Plcfinancing acceptable to the comunity.. It `thtt may also mean assisting neighborhoa's outside the Rd! fir: Nftrate Action Plan area in ;forming Mutual wAttr eocpanies GSA's or sone otber entity to finance, and operate a water sUpp'ly. At our rmoting of April 1, 1986, we 'directed the Administrative Officer to send the attached letter to 'It 2, As soon as it is available the county, in cooperation with Regional stater Quality Control Board. Our actions, and the reper' .a of them; have led people the city, will seek the dost affordable meant to £.uplerent the storm drainage plana This inust fcrredibtely entail •-E to to concerned that we are abandoning the Nitrate Action Plan and3ystecat efforts is eliainatfon of dkisting dry wells, our to Solve the ground water, probleas in Chico, XxrVk4 L. =P. .t This cOWJusion it not founded', 3, DevetopipPht of alteenalves to sewering the; Otfre urban area and continued investigatfon of financier- *v�'hcds lie stilt have a Nitrate Action Plan and are continuing to other than an areawfde AssessFent district., operate under its provisions. Septic permits are continuing to be autbr,rized based In .stcctiry., the Board takes the fact of nitrattf cohUMI"ation on the Plans and its interfra,standards, in our ground Water at a serious matter Re also retognfie that aw esti j hat we did Abandon was the torcwtion of An as:§ sSS: ht district any sot>Jtinn(s) a seek to impletent must reflect the needs and finances Of our tbcrntnity. t PeW,tE that 4t0uld require the.. people sof thee -Unincorporated Area of chico ►vc to pay the entire tort of sewers, stord drains, and WAter treateteht Pict7 plant expansfcrs,We did thi3 because those people could not afford these actions and it is not fait to ask pul Sinterety. ar M� -- thea to do so,• WE""'-"— ire will continue to work to develop alternative plant in con- sultatfon with the Re conal Stater 9 Quality Control r°� r• s� Pra�s_�.� t�was.�_� P ,Boards the City of Chicon-and the people of the Chico urbah area. and Dolan 5uparvisor - Df3tritt We wlll need try review and revise the provisions of the Nitrate Action Plan to better YO(lect current information and i011+` tc: thi'ef ildithistrAtive Witer perspec- tine. The deadlfnot approval of sewer and storm drath pians City Council must be changed mostly because the storm drain plan is not Yr cone feted, this .City Manager data' is is 0100 �it mootsibit too develop hid ab controli Without this , n it i County Planning birector CountyPublfr Warks lirectoc financing alternatives and icptee*ntation timelines, Sime is County Public Health Director true with ektensfon of community water supply Woughdut the County fbvfronmehtal Health Qirector urt,an area And to high nitrate area's. • ..�. r/ er n zr De At3t ng� ` C7emorandu To: Supervisor Hilda 1-illeeler Bu}bCmP{anningCo Fnam, supervisor sane Dolan ,� AUG 3 T 1984 ,, sue.IGc;: proposal for Bell-)~lair Area. } CkOV1119, Califomig DATE. August 24, 198= The Bell-Muir area, 456 acre A-5 zoning d,istr.ict ,(bounded NESF7 by properties fronting on Muir Ave, -Bell .Rd. , the S R zoning just west of Bay-Cussick Henshaw Ave.:, and Hw1i ., 32), has been the subject of much debate the last four years. The area has been zoned A-5 since the mid-601s and with a couple of exceptions (Eisenhauer rezone blip on Bell Rd. and Foreman homesite segregation.on Rodeo Ave,,) there have been ho new parcels created, smaller than. 5-acre in 15 years. HOWever., tttany smaller than 5-acre parcels 'were, in existence prior to the effective date Of the zoning, (so;ne created legally, 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 plan., at 4 least 3 proposals were set forth and intermi:nally discussed- 1) place area in agricultural General Plan (GP) designation and leave zoning as� A-5; 2) place area in AgriculturaliResidential Gp designation and re-zone it toa I-acre minimum "zon, z - 3) place the area in a Study urea and hake necessary consul (engineers, planners) to develop a drainage and traffic plan and analyze other irigacts before changing the zoning. This proposal included pro-- viding a mechanism to have property owners an area: pay tot this study . In September 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved #1. In ' December 198'3, the Hoard initialed a GP amendment that would put this area in some unspecified. urban GP designation and sortie unspec- ified zoning. did hot spod'- CECA requires an Since the p analysis of the "'Frorst case"' possible which could be re,surred to he high density. residential,') In 198 , a property owner petition representing 210 acres of area was' presented proposing a GP desig- nation 'of Agri UItural. Residential and a zoning of 1-.acre m himutri. An EI; has been doomed necessary for both the Board--initiated and, property ovhar petitioner*, ,This is import4nt to pout out, as some people 'hold the erroneous belief that this area has been studied when it hath*ti, The`Poard has se-neral choices to maker I" Cbft;inue to argue this matter without bringing clarity or closure, This is really Xhat- we.Wve been doing since September ,. 2, Al ow the, Boa rr�-�� ni t,�.a ted ameneltneh� to Proceed i n the u8ual mahhb,ri This would rtiean the Department grill get to it as they can in light of establistr�d priorities This is a slov process SqpE'rV15OY Hl lda Wheeler Auouus2 24, 1984 page B. Drop the 'Board. initiated amendment and leave area in agri- cultural designation and still zoned A-5., 4. Allan= the property owner proposal to vtoceed in the usual manner. This vould mean they write, or hire someone to -wr te, an EIR and when that is done hearings scheduled. 5. i3Pfi.re tie area 'proposed for GP, and zone change, specify what GP designation and zoning is proposed, develop a plan for handling drainage and traffic, determine a per parcel charge, and set UP the procedure allowed in -state ,law to have property owners reim- burse the_ county for the cost of the plan and pay their pro .rata share for improvements as they develop. 6.Select a consultant to prepare an EIR for the property owner application, require the Board-ihi tiated ;application to bre .Petition to a these costs. This is 'what the dei tment analyzed as an alternative and re ire those signingthe zoning P i pay Pa. recommended and we tabled July 17 I recommend #5. Since a drainage plan is already underway, it could be said -this proposal has been started, albeit piecemeal. This choice does not answer 'wha't to do with the existing small. ],-)t x paying their share of necessary improvements; but it certainly gets us farther along than 1, 2,' 3, 4, or 6 in settling the Bell -Muir ° controversy. fromst. say propertyaownerrst my f lintthe..oarea4rtolleave things,,as theyuaresupport = 1 would sa that there would be tzemnuous"su ort for that from all who travel N. Esplanade and 'W. ;Easet Ave. HopQver, I recograze a strong desire on the part of maty property owners (clearly 2'70 acres taorth)) to have. the opportunity, to divide 'their property, f tec.omftend for' these reason's: 1j it is'fair to honor the request of property owners for us to consider changing the. GP and zoning in the area,, 2. it 1s unfair to burden the taxpayers with the cost of the 1<egally required EIR, planning analysis, `etc. ;, net!essary to honoh this roq;uest, 3. Since 1t has bceh a long established, appropriate, fiscally conservative policy of Butte County to have development Pro jec:,•ts pair them` oath Trays it 'would seem a very poor teVtrsal of policy and ari ix.approprlate allocation of public resources to subszd­ ize development. _311h thi area,. 4. 'Piet as rt�fpresentat vee of the public, M1 interest, Ik1Ust 80ek anst�ers to, at Ieasty the drainage rind lraaff�c impacts that will. be AFFICE �14,Z EPADMI'NIS C OUNT'i" OF 13Lt` r1-* 25 COUNTY CENTER DR 080VIl tF". CAI„iE`•05110A 95965..-3300 , (916) 534-+4631 BOUT), 0 0 o MEMBERS OF THE BOARD e ... a DUMB HASKEL A, IIA&ITURF JANE DOLAI4 MARTIN) 08CHOLtS GHir"FJwilYiii1fiflATIVEbFFICE�I HILDA WHEELER ED McLAUGHLIN LEN FULTOP4 January 22, 1987 Joe Burrell,, et al 2947 Nord Avenue Chico, Ca 95927 And Donna,Mooberry 2777 Alamo Chico, Ca: 95926 Rst General Plan Amendment, File 84-45 Dear Mrs. Mooberry and Mr. Burrell,: At the regular meeting of the Butte County Boatd of Supervisors held January 20, 1987; the public: hearing was continued closed to February 10; 1087 to consider your request for a General Plan Amendment from Orchatd and Field Crops to Agricultural -Residential on property zoned A-5 located on both sides of Muir Avenue, south of Bell, Road, west of. Alamo Avenue, Chico. The meeting will be held in, the Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administration Center„ '25 County Center Drive, Oroville, and is scheduled to begin at 9:00 am. Should you have any I questions regarding this matter, please contact the Planning Department at 538-1601 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p,m. Very truly yours] Martin ,7. Nichols Chief AdminsttatVe 0fficer MJN:lt earth metrics incorporate uite Co. Planning Cotmy, MAR 2 1987 Oroy&, Catton LI February 16, 1987 Mr. Kircher Butte County Planning Dept. 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Re: EIR for Mooberry-Burrel GPA STATEMENT :.OF ACCOUNT DATE ITEM CHARGES CREDIT BALANCE- 62/28/86 8756-3449 $4,220.00 $4,220.00 $4,220.00 —0- 04/03/86 Payment 04/25/86 8756-3569 $1,688.00 $1,688.00 05/2/86 Payment $1,688.00 1,688.00 -0- $1,688.00 11/24/86 8756-3874 $1;688'.00 _. Amount due -�iGS COVVA�` iiiAb, BUFt1fNLiAA7f�r CALJ�iDRNiA`�1b10 14151 ��ywyiO3 commuIVITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS) CITYol CHICO x ' a-1 Ma Ye 1v K d w 92 r ;4e C DPW Chrono/ December 3, 1986 Supervisor_ Jane Bolan P.O. Box 370LO Chico, CA .95927 Dear Jane, The foll.ou`.ng is in, response to your request for in- formation concerning the treatment of the Boll -Muir area in the 1982 Chico Urban Area Transportation Study (CATS) ethelCATS1zoarea encompasses a portion of zone 30 in(see attached zone map), Y Zone 30 was as.-,'.gned a population of 20.00 for 1980, and essentially no population growth was assumed for both the year 20'00 and the full: build -out scenario. One can conclude therafc, e that the area was included ir: -the model'but,"at low Cexisting) densities. The mprovements called for by the year 2000 includes (1) widening ,of the Esplanade from Shasta to Eaton to four` lanes with left -turn lanes. (2) the widening of ;East Avenue from Esplanade to Sk02 to four lanes with left -turn !.Anes, (3) widening of East A,t- awe fxlim Esplanade to 8R99 to six lanes with left -turn lant.�S, and (4) installation of traffic signals at Espl.anado/Shasta, Esplanade/Henshaw, Esplanade/Eaton, East/oussl,ck, and East/SR324 At full build -out, further improvements include. (1) 'widening East Avenue to six lanes with left -toxo lanes from Esplanade to SR321' (2) widening Lassen Ax+auue to four lanes with left -turn lanes for its entire length, and extending Eaton Road from. Esplanade to SR32 txi8tiAvenuenattdnEsplanadeeareeaslfollowsr�ice LOS for East g P J TABLE VII L LEVELS OF SERVICE FOR, URBAN AND SUBURBAN ARTERIAL STREETS LEVEL OF SERVICE DESCRIPTION, _:, �^ V/C RATIO A Free flow (relatively). If signalized, conditions 0.00- 0.75 are such that no approach phase is fully utilized _ by traffic and no vehicle waits through more than one red indication. Very slight or no delay. 8 Stable flow. If signalized, an' occasional approach 0.76 - OM phase is fully utilized; vehicle 'platoons are formed This level is suitable operation for rural design purposes. Slight delay. C Sable 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 purposes. Acceptable delay. D Approact' unstable flow' or operation;, queues 1.01 = 1.25 develop, but, ark jui tidy cleared. Tolerable delay: E Unstable flow or, i)eration; the intersection has 1.16' - 1.25 reached ultimate capacity; this condition it not uncommon in peak ',hours: Congestion and intolerable delay. F Forced flow or operation; Intersection operates 1.25+ below capacity. Jammed.. Source: Highway, Capacity hanual) HR8 . Spec-ia1 Report 87 � C � ' Inter-Departm nta1 Memorandum TO, Board of Supervisors FROM: Planning Department tU13JECT., BELL MUIR, FINAL EIR DATE: 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 Staffand submitted to the consultant'. These 'summaries are comments H and I found on pages 12_14 and 12-24. The body of the document has been revised to reflect 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- Sept'c systems are no longer recommended. The entire di:s cussion of nitrates groundwater quality, and the use of septic verses sewers has been greatly expanded. Sea pages 2-,13, 3.4..1, 3.4-7 and 34-10. If septic 'tanks will be allowed in Bell-Muir, an appropriate standard will have to be developed as part of the. Nitrate Action Plana 2. other Planning documents which will be affected by the project and which will meed to be amended because of the project have been referenced. See page 2-8. Vor example,` an amendment to the Nitrate Action Plane County Circulation Element and Sphere of influence would be necessary: 3. Nitrate information has been included for the property. See page 33-4. 4. appropriate�px»_pegsixesuwll The storm et.has been clarified. The i accomodate a 10-year storms, but in no case shall houses or more than 1/3 of the street from curb to centerline be inundated. during a 00-year storm - events 5. One road standard discussed in the document (898"1) has been amended by the recent improvement standards to« vision. 6 An oxpanded discussion on the potential for pedestrxari and car coriflidts on East Avenue and in ,front of schools has been included on pages 3.2-16 and 5.2-18. The document from paddendum has been prepared The � �.snow in final form, An t�bl;�.c hearings.. g manor changes and att.achth,c the This addendum will becomo part of the final EIR: Board of Supervisors Page Two January 28, 1987 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 the manner in which these mitigation 'measures might be implemented. Some options available to the Board include formation of a County Service Area, Community Services District., Mello Roos District, by general, plan policies applicable only to Bell -Muir; or a Bell -Muir -special planning area zone with development standards.. In addition to how the mitigation measures will be adopted, for example, by district or conditional rezone, the timing of those improvements needs to be determined. The document: states that major road wotk, 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 prior to any positive action being taken on this general plan amendment. Should this general: plan amendment be approved; the prope:ctes will become part of the Chico Urban Area. Because of this, the following plains Will need to be amended to reflect the properties: change in status: The Brown and Caldweli Sewerage Plan; storm - - drainage plan, school needs -studies plan; Chico urban Area Transportation Plan, Butte County Circulation Element, LAFCa's Sphere of Influence, the Nitrate Action Plan and the Financing Plans for all of the above. Who is responsible for initiating these amendments and who will pay for them needs to be determined. Bell -Muir is a distinct neighborhood with its own 'unique charact,- eritic5. Vor this reason, the project alternative area of approximately 430 acres is preferred to the patchwork 270 acre' application. The no project alternative is the environmentally superior one. DEriial of the general plan amendment is recommentled, Some of the reasons for this recommendation include the eight significant environmental effects which cannot be ;avoided if the project is implemented as described on pa.,�e 5•-1, the project would foste population growth and remove a constraint to growth inthe project vicinity , and approval of the pp general plan amendment would uhdetw. mine Planning efgorts to shift urban growth to the east Sideof the Chico community, Should amendmentSistaftawillhbee contemplated on this general plan p p preparing a very detailed amotion lett the Su orvi'sors with. in `mc - Enolostres Fina. Bl2 Bell=Muir EIR Addendum, t, w AL LA N { f wn URA! V1 EAI.iH At4l� FI t-i3tY ,er PLANNING COMMISSION' 7 COU14TY CENTER 0?I'VE - OPOVILLE, CALIFORNIA 45965.3'97 PHONE; SU-4601 December 16, 1986 8r'i an Kennedy EarthMetr l es Inc 859 Cowan Road Bur i i neame, CA '94010 Gear~ 8r i an As we r, i scussed at the Board meeting of Oecember 211986 concerning the Bei l -I'1u i r EI R, I am hereby sent# l ng to you a su"mmar`y of comments made on the ciocumen-t. 'The letter- ha i--oUr" parts: a St-JiM.Mary -Of COMments• made at the puo I i c hearing, a summary of Supervisor [,,-ran 's comments, a list of my Comments, and a list of persons commentdne. on the document. All of these comments will be responded to pursuant .d. your contract. The text oL, the doCumentr w+111be amended to reflect any Changes in data ort cane!it:1ons. 'rhe pIannin�j bIrector shall review and approve the consultant's responses to comments prior to your mokil70 the approprlate text revisions and printing of the a5 copies df the Final PIR. Section 3.'O'" of the: con tl-r^act indicates that you wi l l pr-ov i de to us 8 'cop t es of; these r,espo'nses to commertits,, The foiloWi1g Is a summary .of` the pulp11d comments made on the document at they .board of" Superry 1 cors hear i rigs dated November 4 y 1 986 and Deeemb.er 2> 1786. CSC' I !Seek 1. the Green I I ne findings iia; not app'I y. 2. 1ho increase I n traf f it and drainage as a resu i t of the '801 I --IvU i Ir project w"r 11 not be as great as on the At-ho Id"Pacif c shipping center which the Board approved on a Ne0ative OPCI&ration p : 3 ► Septic tanks are rect►mmend4d Instead of CommLtn I ty i r 4,, No mechanism is avaIIabie to provide for po`IIce patrol on a project-by-project basis It is recommended that one large district be formed and resident deputies considered. He further questions the use of a benefit assessment district to spread the costs of development. Karen '+/ercruse reoresentl nn Herself. The Farm Bureau would ' not defend Bell-Muir as agricultural land. Traff=ic and drainage need to be studied. Dora Shell does.not belleve that there is a drainage problem in the - Be 1,1 -irlu i r area . Fr@nk Brazell does not believe there is a drainage problem In the , 8611-Muir area. All other comments made at the November-40 1986 Board of Supervisors`' hearing were directed to the proijact and not the EIEC. They therefore do not need to be ad,dresse,�µ The following is a summary of comments made at the December 2, 1986 Board of Supervisors' hearing: A1_8eck 1. The suggestion that a 200-fools setback of residential uses from agrIcultural;_uses 1,4111 1 1 m I t­ the buildable area of the tots. 2, On Page. 2-t3 what Is the t i m i n,g of development? it it suggested j that the wording'.be changed to allow for a provision that, after a' given percentage of the lots have developed out) ail Infrastructure improvements will be constructed. -4 Hc_ does phot feel that an underground drainage systeRt is necessary #end would prefer to see the condition that, an adequate drainage system be provided for. 4; He commented that requiring drainage to accommodate a 100-year, storm is unu ual. Aa'1 more reasonable standard, In his spinlon, is P 0- to 20-.year storm. It Is suggested that portions of parcels be used as holding bas i hi ; for drainage water. 5i, He commented that the requirement to sewer the properties Is excess t°Ye Janie l?ol an 1;3 l nterested In hydrologic data Indicating that 'l -acre p ptic tanks will not contaminate the groundwater or . de:ve 1 o Ment on se overload the sails,. AI :beck; Ind I cated that PolIce patrols .should be excluded from the iIst of )nitl;gatin measures. He 'suggests that the funding for the Infrastructure improvements be provided for through an assessment alstrl.c k lr, n� Brazel IIndicated problem,.the area is Alread developed and doe's not joe Durrell commented that a sewer system, drainage system and sidewalks are not normally required on development with a parcel size of 140'1 acres: i LiIIlanHerschburo commented that the existing A-5 zoning is discriminatory in light of the more Intensive zoning allowed on East Avenue. J-ne Dolan: 1. The project, descr 1 pt i on is incorrect in that the alternative area encompasses more than 400 acres, 2i The, recommended agricultural setback is unclear. and 'needs to be reworded to spec. i f i ca l 1 y . tate that it app l 'i e= i.'a the Perimeter of Individual parcel s Q.-. ti,e Ser =meter of the alternative pro,ject area. 3 The property is �-Wts i dP_ of tt ►e N i trate :Act i,on Plan. No sta l;,cen..wrlt has been made we+c; hher° 1 rycre o _ n septic tank complies with said plan.. 4 On Page" 2-1, el i n i nate the hourly limits ora farmers. The impact of can f 1 i c:t 1 rig land use and the suggestedMitigation measures are uric l ez.te- and i n fens i b i e. This Is an area where a finding will hav a to be made on i ndomp;at i b l e l acrd use , S. A i' 1 cost f i gores-thou I d g i` via a soL ice and year. 6: Areawide traffic` conditions are significant. hiitleation measure sc,iggest i ng the use of federal '"funding is riot adecquate. Alternative mitigation measures .must be under the control of the,'body adopting the document The following are my comments based on the results of the pub l 1 c heat'*) ng process ;and previous 'memos to your ` f4rtn le The total expanded project area is closet- to 42o acres rather than 400 acres 2. As noted in 'previous memos, maps Beed to be changed on the fol !,owing pages: 1-2i 1--4, 311:.5y Plan. 3. On Page 1-50 change ,a- se wera he study" to ''the Nitrate Actian 4i hoes the table found on Pb;­,2-1 assume 400 acresl How were these figures derived? 5. ` Typor, weed found on the f o l l ow l og pa©\_j�s C 2-1 , second paragraph $ " 1 t,f'rastructUra" 2-2,, first pat^agraph •' i nd i v i dual l 2"2t second paragraph, drop '`SPE'?'', add "to", after "ability" 2-7; second paragraph, "1 l ve' , _13, des i rab i I i ty" 3. -5i fburth Paragi^aph �►ai itbost" 9 �. �4L 1 0 � second parsigrapli � ��resa 1 ut 1 an , ��