Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1 OF 21
�_. . •� . � _ __ ,. � Y - ;,, �,: .._. _.. ... _. , ....__ .. ���r aC Fz o . TT s �.r?wirAa�szY S iE E x' Mooberryj Burrell applicant representative ADDRESS: 2777 Alamo Chico,- Ca.. 9592F PHONE: Various property owner ADDRESS. - Authorization and Agreement for the Prepara- tiara of an Environmental Impact Report for Bell-Muir - General Amendment from Orchard & L'ielel Crop to Ag . -Resi en property zoned�� located` Bell Muir area identified as AP Various town/are-,: Chico GENERAL PLAN DEaIGNA'i"ION APPLICATIMN ACCEpM; TOTAL FEE PAID: RECEIPT r mER: DATE REZONING PETITION SIW TURES Cj1ErKED; PERCENTAGE; b MAILING LIST PREPARED KAIL-OUT NOTICES WRIT E9 ------------ NOTICEa MAILED -" - NUMBER: LEGAL DESCRIPTION PREPAREDr PUBLICATION NOTICE WRITTEN :.. DISPLAY AD 'PREPARED nk�ISPAPEft PUBLICi TIQN 0 C PG 3i R ?ATF, Or PUBLICATIQN , �. INITIAL STUDY PREPARED ENVIRON41ENTi4L DETERhiIKATION:Categorical'. Exemption FILED: Negative Declaration FILED: Mitigated Negative,Declaxation FILEBt Environmental Impact Report CERTIFIED: Other: STATE. CL AWN a OUSE NUMBER: APPLICANT/REPRESENTATUF_ NOTAFICATIQN OF ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION PLARmi; COMMISSION ;mARING(s) ; BOARD OF SUPERVISOR$, HEAFLXNG(s) RESOLUTION NUMBER (GPAs) AWK10 ORDINANCE NUMBER AD-OPTED.- 1DUPTEDrNOTICE NOTICEOF' DETERMINATION (Appendix H) FILED 'R CONTENTS Page VII'. SIG1,41FICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 15111ICH CA'+TNOT BE AVOIDED IL' PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED ........... 45 VIII. SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE EI+VIRON�MEVTi'AL CHANCES C�HOULD THE PROPOSED ACTION? BE IMPLEMENTED .........................; 45 IX. SHORT-TER',I'VS. LONG— ERNI COMMIT:rIENTS OF RESOURCES .. 46: X. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS ......... . ...... ........... 47 XI. ALTERNATIVES T) THE .PROPOSED ACTION .... . .... .... ...... o References. o Persons and Ory nizations Consulted o EIR Preperatora o ApPendie�s A. Initial Study 8.1 Geology Report C. ort D. Air Quality Background and Calculations E. Zoning Ordinance' Provisions F. Rare Plant Survey -Report G. Wildlife Survey Report H, Cultural Resources Survey Report Yts ' J. AuthorityQualityTest esof Spec �+�yYD re I io Plans K. id Plan imments ReceVed Cin, the Draft ESR and Responses L, Comments M: Memorandums And letters of September 17, 1.982 through Novdiuber 2, 1982 W th`Planning Department Responses N, Comments'received at the Bidwell Heights Hearings o7' Deceriber 1.4 21 1982' and January 1.1, 1983 with Pr&.-- 1imihaxy Responses to the Significant Environmental Issues 0, Addendum on Cumulative Impacts o licati'ons between the Chica Urban £ lip Py Analysis p �. Transportation Study ((ATS} and: State Route '32 Corrie,°, e p - 1991 Resonseeto Ct.heralxPlanY Comments Bi&kd Q. p , 11 Heights Specific Plan and Associated Rezoning - Febrt' 2, 1983 R. Staff Re'sPonte., to Wildlife Impacts; Wildlife dt sessmeint £rota WESCo S List of Persons, Commenting on t he Draft EIR �. T� Coxre,spondonce and Responses -,i BID;WELL HEIGHTS LA14D PROJECT DRAFT I NMONMENTAI IMPACT REPORT CONTENTIa Age oTable of Contents ........... •...... ,.... ..i.....•.. i o Lust of Figures and Tables .. . , f ... ♦ . • , .... • ......... iii i. SUriMARY. ... ....,Y .... .......... i.... . .f 1 ll.: I14�Tt.31ODUC/,.1.1J':}a•......••.•.:.•••... i ...... - i:•.•i a•.• 2 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND STATE."UENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES .... ! .' . , ..... ......... ':..: «..... i ........ 3 IV. ENVOIROINIMENTAL SFT -TING, ...:.: Y ., .... , .. • .:.... «'.... «.:..... 4 A. Location :'- ♦ • • • i ! . ♦ 11.. ♦ i • ..'. ♦ • • . • i r • . : • • i .. a • . i a i B. Topography..... -•....•♦i .♦..Y.♦ .......i..i .,•i. 4 Geology and Seismicity .... • . . , . ♦ .. i .. , ... • ...:. i .. , J . _. �C''t: 1J,. Soils, . . . . . . . . ♦ . . : ..'.:. . Y . r. . . . . . . r .. . . , ♦ �... . . . . . .. . . , r . . . ♦. ,• 6 E. Hydrology . {........;..♦..,. .. .i .i. F. Climate. ....••. .......... ..t t... ......... .a.ii .3.' , Alt Quality • t . •.a . . i . ♦ . . i . .., • : , • • ., . . . q lI. Noise.a.•. i ... ..... .. ;.a..i .a.i.i.: 11 I. Land iise.r ....... 1. .i. .; 11 J: 1'egetation. 12 - A.«. If ili.Yule..ti'..i!•ti••:is-••••i..:itiia'.•ia♦..ii ••:. i.i.ii•J'••st Yi•::Y i s i L• Cultural. ResCvurces • i : a • , i • : • a :c a » • • • . Y • . Y i : r f • • ♦ • r • ♦ r • , a : i , y 14 tl• Traffic and Circulation :..:...1, . • • . • ... . « ... .. • ♦ . 34 -':01 iii'• Public Services ... • i i' .. ♦ f ..:. » :.:..:,.... i-., ..: utilities a ♦ ci • i . • i . • , i i . 'i Y t ,. . .. . . ..1:. . . i . i . . t • .: i . t . r.. . . . . 9 1 17 wi .EN6qIiOPiNIEy'TAL iiti,tPACT A9D MTTIGATTOIN , . • i . Y i i i • ♦ . ,' :. i :. i 1a A♦ Geology and Soils i...,...if . i...: !....i«i..,r♦ .. is R. WaterQualityu�l� .H /Pb1i. . V.lrLlitVi• Di, ' ���• J{i.l�.'fyll �:�•3h ��I yI�+t1y/yi .S. ♦ i • a { • • •- Y • • 7 i ii • a i t i. i a i t i a a i • • •'t • i • . a 2.3 2 6 8, 21} F. Lan: Tise/Pla,-�n1[lg • ♦i.::« f » • .' �: . } i i... ♦ a i i .. ,♦ i . i i . • i ♦ i.'. :. i t i a •-. Y i 1 i i s egetationandlildlify, l.. 'Vegetation and, Wildlif t7 V � 3"') H.Cultural fesou ee:, • i v • • • . ia • a) . ryraftic . r ii a• Y. i ••♦ i a i a 6 a•• i .i • ia4a ae 1 i i. a Y p IJa{(•�l 36 ' 36 Publ e o 6 F a•: 1 ia,ili i:. ♦ 1 i 1,: i 1 i .• i: 39Serile t1ll.�rgle'.� •�.aar'.i •{••tY..i'.i.1•i i'aY: a it.ii .: t♦.•aa.i l:iail 1 ' yLI L �no . y . t • 4;: • a ::, .. . . i ."i : i : •''. ,:,i : ♦ • 1 .. �. . • . r.'.. 1 '.. f 1 43 VI' LI I` * CTU P V V':{,�) 1./ N O .l T V' . � L L�}IL 7.1.. IF FICA! Y.! i 1 i i 1 1 i a:t i : a i.. i. a ... 44 t-jr LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 ..... ........ ... :Regional Location .. ..: , . t . .. .. 4a . 4b 2 Site Vicinity Location.. :................................... 3 Project Nap ............... : .... . ..............:... . 4 Site G°eology. ... .... 5a: OF TABLES LIST Table l Soil Types and Characteristics ......:.. : . .... .... ,�..... ... _ S Table 2 Climatological Data ........:....:..:..:.:.: .... , ..... + .... to Table 3 Fire Station Response Times. . ........; :........., ; .....:.... 117 Table 4 Project Mobile'Source Emissions .. ....:,...............:.... I 2 c - 1. SUMMARY p potential impacts of developing 385 dwelling units plus a This report addresses the of ' and recreational area on 1200 acres located on Doe Mill Ridge, seven small comme"tial miles east of Chi+so. found to be significant include subsidence, Toss of mineral Those impacts not - volcanism, water quality effects, air pollution, aesthetics, noise, resources, impact on public utilities, alteration impacton rarep lents, impact on cultural resources, patterns and flow -volumes, effects on groundwater quality, ,and impacts on of drainage t schools. impacts which are potentially significant requiring mitigation include Tfiose habitat reduction, traffic increases at the Highway exposure to seismic hazards, wildlife 32/Santos iVay intersection, exposure to fire hazard, increased service load on police and g • � e) expansive soils) and erosion. :fire a encies energy us described in the report include no project, a different design Protect alternatives with the same density Utilizing or avoiding PA -C zoning, a reduction in, project density increase iTi project density: p and anye �~r _ y t r 'erit is a jand rojec,, a4 de��ned e,n. SectiLin s C x. f the the Lr7,4 Etisit eaS and. Professions +ode, a Spec P'l �YiCI S��Cia�x���5i3 yftc a�.�.an be F. -P' `.wb �y♦ '}.,�y{'"�+y r}n+ yr}y�}�P yya a��!'p y� a-•yy'P w'J„y7 r.%� e�y�.o�,iQ,�e','...j7,x,�'�i``ci.;4 k . ul !d .iWLAo p 4x31 ✓�..l4` are sold• 1'h ,y y ,,y to Sf"'w ia.�3i'� 'C.+Jf""`4 Z y"'J� �fu.heI r+o'��4ii�a,.miei7�it tCiOie5- is i. gtended o provide 4�il�iii''CJiza-t-�.on ' a V ,p .hn t t t the va:'i 3418 ovmerahips Otjth'Li wh't� o� devr; zIopme4t atti J].+ ie wig iTis�are that �rit area ce plate *Lte�r�ated develorrel is Compatible tragi -h each otl.e� a� ' pro �. it to + n #± � : eraI Flat . his iR �a� 1 serge W a mas wer� environzent al as yes T�et�i fdr d �.rp; } mr�iktS within fife pr` jez t l�antlar� es. oec,,jojj of *.xw`e Government. Cole Provides that this EIll, for the oubject atea., s?�a�1 be applicable to subsecluen' sand, d�virsiO S and rez,nes ptXrsaAa�� t t! ari4 bn consrkri y frith the peCifi,c Plan for �rii�. ena ll'e been Ter tez diz ,for ilrticlo , Authority for and 8sove Of r f t Ii. IN TRODUCTION Urban and suburban growth brings with it environmental changes which to some extent can be anticipated and analyzed before they occur The- California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) established the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) procedures for such analysis. Through the review process' established by islation, this legislation, the environmental consequences of land use decisions by governmental agencies can be studied before the decision is trade. The results of this analysis are refined through comments, responst.ss and public hearings and are made available to persons potentially affected by the decision as Well as to the decision -makers themselves. a This tlR is intended to be a full disclosure document written as a part of the above- described process. It describes the anticipated environmental effects of converting 1300 acres of ridge top chaparral 'to rural residential horn g • _ d for housing,. The, project proponent, Bidwell' .Ilei-hts Land Comment the redo ntzed nee o Fa yl has selected a rural setting for the development: Through a project design which was strongly * 'Iuenced by environmerital constraints, the developer intends to preserve the rural aesthetic qualities of the site while tnakino the area available for home confitriietion. R Preservation ;of the rural character of the site would be accomplished throubh a combination of relatively larger parcels on portions ;of the site and cluster design with open spacti wthere residential densities are more concentrated. Prior to firming up the project design, an interdisciplinary team of field researchers �. p r project • .6 tnipadws in the fields of wildlife -rev ec�,.d the ro eet site and identifi.,d otential biology, botany, geology, archaeology and soils enghioerind. The results of mese surveys are attached as Appendices, Figure 3 illustrates the project, des',V which reflects survey results. A.•i • initial study ,was also ^ornpleted (See Appendix A) which directed 9 the primary focus or the EtF study to the following issues; , c Topographic changes Soil rvision r o Geologle hazards t o Surface rolloff accommodation A,' Oroundivatee quality and quaritity, s Vegetation removal a W ildllfe habitat aisturbence Land: use and roculaticn distribution * Energy consumption s. a o Traffic circulation o Public services w o Aesthetic The EIl7 ttss:sses thr relative siDnificancn of each i',,uewnd proposes mitiDntio�l MCasurdl-I to tivot•d or 1•c.di y cc Impacts where appt-opriatti,. i J M. PROJECT DESCRIPTIaN ThePct ro p j.. consists of approximately 1200,.acre ntended for developmentas homesites with a small recreational area around the on-site reservoir and a small: commercial area near the project entrance (see Figure 3). Although proposed zon'ino the,)retically would permit some 450 parcels to be developed, actual development potential — reflecting existing parcel limes and sewage disposal constraints is projected to be a maximum of 385) dwelling units or less, yielding an overall density of les one unit per three acres. Sewage disposal wi11`be handled by septic tanks with s than lea'ehfields, and water v ll be supplied by the Buzz Tail Water works, a muitual ,rater company!, The northernmost portion of the project, area is a 318 -acre existing subdivision t of 14 twenty acre parcels proposed for SR -3 zoning. Another existing development of 17 l five -acre parcels lies in the central portion` of the 'project near the eastern, boundary, and a tentative subdivision map has been approved for. 13 three -acre parcels just south of the 17 -lot development. The balance of thero et�t consists of a 68 -acre grape virey ' >' P p y ,fro: nine 40 -acre parcels and some rhiscellaneous pieces for a total of 1186_d -8. Proposed toting includes SR -2 (Suburban Residential, two -acre minimum parcels), SR -3 (Suburban Resident,al, three -acre ;mini.mum parcels), PA (Planned Area-C1Uster),, >?-Q .(Public, Quasi -Public) and i;"c (Neighborhood' Commercial) a5 shown on the project: map, F IC UL e R 3.„ 9TATWAMN' " Gr P, R0JtCT 0BJE- C'l'NM The developers aim tt� provide cur z3 residentsal homesites on Doe, MillPidge families. Phis objective wive would extend over a period of ten 1 for moderate ir>:co�e � J r to i'i,.teen years. A Homeowner : Association p maintehance � � s + - n wi11« be res orsble for • p.. y r _ y D` cti add o eratiolt of co�.on7. otmedl land and �ac'litie5. A Coa�tittnit. Sarv:ces siri or poss-ibly a County 5orvice Area,, is proposed' to ,operate anti manage sUdh services as the fire etationj road. maintenance 'recur ty ,patro1 and transit bus or van. ". proposed by the anpi.ie:ant, gyp! Since this particular area has experienced little residential development, careful planning is needed to balance the cbjewtives of 'providing housing versus he carrent open nature of the Land: and its inherent characteristics such: as . wildlife habitat. A convenience store and gas station are planned as a means to Provide some of the food; fuel and incidental needs of future residents, thus dimini,-ping the reed for song; distance commutas to Chico. A GETIErAL T.ESCPIr-TI''xz OF TH- PF!,-JuC'T'S'AEGHNICA_L, EG0NGr:Iw, ANL 82WX:,paONIIENTAL G'RsRACTEPI TLIS The Bidwell Heigh z uasid rro4ect is intended to be a complete subdivision and tlanned developmFnt built, in conformance with' Butte County's, Improvement Standards for subdivisions. Ine mait access road is propcseci`to be an F-7 Standard, ;t fagot aide graveled road wisth seal coat. Secondary, roads are also to be graveled. Surface drainage would be handled by on-site filtration or by drainage swales hiding -D either l v .: fi c Butte e_:the� frit � co ,;re-,k or Bu to Creek Sewag x disposa would be with individual, or common septic tank- leachfiel,d systems., dater will be provided from a , omm,.tn, ty water system. Additional wars are anticipated to meet the hater needs for domestic use and fire protection. �y s. j t S available s 34,000 gallo is . Upgrading �.trren�.3v, wager storage is ava.�labl.. �n the amount o,. of the water storage capacity will occur as development occurs and after engineering fpr' the design.. Aa on.-site fire station is I;ropoaed for constr;Aution in 'Ih6 near future. The foundat e on for the building is in -place and one fire trr :k is available. Cpen space is to be pv ci,*i,ded f`or the PA-4 rezone areas vr. th corridors for wildlife mo;tements. The larger pat,oi! It of acres plus will, also have open space: though hot coordinated as with, A-� t G area& This area of Doe Mill Ridge is the V considerei a key migratory area ftr the, Bast r:ehama'Deer Herd, and is important for other wildlife speoies of the upper Sonoran Life Zone. g r he economic f`ac'tors for the project. The aoll�ovri,n estitr�ates are made o� t h Value ofland, - 945,GOC to $60,000 Value of dwel3ing units - a90,GgG to S105,W For "' ^35 dwelling units the foll.awain�. figures are: dorived Total value of Land and improvements 08-5 x $15G;=) $5?05C',OOO 'Having a. market Value ofK�'r , �� ,G'�� and a Gouxxtyy tit rate of 1:5"o' of market value, the property taxes returned to the County w:onl.d bo approximately $57000- Additional. tar revenues ma; be realized in the fature by Special ta.te8 for :school d:ist-ricts and other entities. A fiscal analysers is to be prepared; prior to public hearings on the Specific plan, to determine how.the revenues wril.l'balance with elosts fo:• pv.Jl.ic servioes by the County �, r -��y _ �. IV. EN)rlRONMENTAT. SETTING A. LOCATION the prop osed Bidwell Heights Land Project consists of The property for approximately 1200 acres on the uplands of Doe Mill Ridge about seven mil Cali orn a pp a in northern 'Butte county, Chico in the foothills of the Sierra/Cascade Rang R'3E and a portion of Figure p' p 8 in'C22N, (see Fi re .1). It occu ies ovtions of Sections 6, 7 and 1 roxunatel one ' e sits:, begins &pp y Section 12 in T2214, R2E iVID13 acid M (see r. re 2). The male east of Highway extent of Bidwell Park in Big Chico Creek is ang Y 32° the northerno ,.y se is located about three miles east on the west:. side of the High dy. The town of Parodi the other side of Butte- Creek Canyon. B. TOPOGRAPHY Located almost e►'tirey, on the upland of Doe Mill. Ridge (see Figure 2 for location and topographic c}ontours), the Bidwell. Heights property is upland lies momostly flat to gentf"� sloping, slo 1 n' with slopes ft�or�� 0 to 5 percent. This mostly at shout 1400 feet, p g y area reaching ,about 1600 feet at the extreme gentl down to the southwest the highest f r edge on the bluffs northeast and-sl{)pingtee or m i down to about IZ00 feet &t. -the sites wester , above Little Chico Creek': The portions of the property with steep oderate slopes are. located at tht� edges including the ver 'small areas of vertical `, oI at the bluff edge �� g �' g moderate slope canyons which form tributaries of ' of Doe Mill Ridge at the southeast, the en�'i and in the Little Chico Creek at thee xtreme north'northeast corner; and a shall.,wer draw which externs from the southwest slightly into the site's center. C. GEOLOGY AltD,SEIsmicITY* General Regional Geology After the foririation of the Sierra Nevada and the F anthills Fal11t system (about 125 ' million years' ago), ocean waters entered the Paradise area and retreated, leaving the en _ etuons is taken from an October *The irrforme;ton in this and the following th Ph" Lydon,. lease refer to this in 1981 report on the geology of the property by p, p Appendix t for greater detail. 7 " FIGURE 2 SITE VICINITY LOCATION ' 41 Ile t r , 01 01, x « a 9 � t � �� `-�s....�.., .�.`w�:-•� i 'ter � i , v ,�`:�' • _ +�,r �, " e �` I '°.. 1 ..KfY ,� Y }``Ay r�' y V ;. (\/wn lar. '� ,i r • .3' .P�' �-r•, � � � v� f 4 ,e� s P r )'� ,".si'~ :�na i`''ii; '�-:4, •� ��=e�-- + , �' r `\ q "� ..s°t i.y, !7/- ( '1 , •"a=r:a=o,- ' t j 7 y i ' w\ `•� ` ' G` _i ;� �... e _ . �..... ! _..:u �,♦... w :.�.�k ..>a ' J.w..�s—.✓' i �`i.au rte` �w + `w, ' 1 —1 ��-'� � ..>'� � �• �,.� f, °• Lhti jYyy.i Yah'„ � � •...n ��;` „.r+ • ....1111 x f ` '' i jt I L r1� E I G H T x' 'o' �� /�"y .. 'x w ��,. „, � ��.r ,w �4,���<4b �'�(x�l ,��rr•�J e� �j` ,: �� y ' to B -D 141 Ij � � •F � wt% f'"w �a. _. �A 111 ����� �•�'}' �.,x i .I t: i + n' J5 F4'` i .>. s+ . f. w l'• wi,i.~ ; /� %iLi3-rf' r' YYi f M' w,..' w; ...r,✓"- '. ho .;. ° o i milt L.n.t i0D � t�� oda �acarf i 5�ONOtai ter, x ;rl l.... 'i, sedimentary Chico Formation. T;iese layers were later covered with lava flows (Lovejoy Basalt) deposited west and northwest of Paradise. About 3.3 million Years ago, a series fI o of thick inter-volcanic mud'- ows and associated volcanic sands and con�lomerates (Tuscan Formation) covered the region, followed by basaltic lava, flowing, along Cohasset. Ridge and the future course of Deer Creek. Faulting occurred in the Foothills Fatilt. System which probably continues; along the Chico Monocline; a fold in the Tuscan Formation forming the straight eastern edge of the Sacramento Valley and containing many small 'faults. The entire series of layers dips down slightly toward the southwest. The sitelgeolo m� (Figure 4) shows that only one of the above four geolo j 09Y gical: geology p 1 units :is exposed oti the Bidwell Heights property — the Tuscan Formation, which is the ! most recent (with the exception of the basaltic lava which appears only on Cohasset Ridge and in Deer Creek bed): The oldest Chico Formation is present beneath the site beginning at elevations of about 600 to 700 feet and is probably over 500 feet thick. Under the Chico Formation are the ancient crystalline rocks of the Sierra Nevada. ` overlying the Chico Formation in the western portion of the property is the Lovejoy' 4 Basalt whose top surface is at about 800 feet elevation, and exposed only along a small segment of the bed of Little Chico Creek. just of to the West The Tuscan Formation -covers the -site at a, thickness of about -700 feet, on the rage. The less p y alternately with the more permeable p Q t s With the mudflows re ermeable: mud flows ate la eyed sands-tones and ori lomera e , w' predominating in the. upper. part of. the an ��ers, trees and shrub.occur in formpermeable Since mater travels in the more la bands along the canyon walls corresponding to. the sand and conblomerate layers of the Tuscan Formation. SC Local. €?aulting In addition to the site' proximity to the Chico Nvtonoollne (an ektetision of the Foothills Fault 5ystem)Onumerous 'small fractures and faults are visible on and near the site as short alignments of trees and brush in aerial photos. These fractures and fa►llts, are shown with solid lines in Figure 4. The dashed lines represent Surface fault or W , fracture traces mapped by Harwood et, al. (1981) Which Were not distinguishable In the p y recognized zone of relatively recent (within the last ; bolas, The Property lies in a million years), widespread, small-scale fault movement with some eartligriake activity occurring interM tently at the, present time. I® EAWh`r�i %r M M I ;� yi �;I WWI r r . � T , . L .� • ,yr r it T Tuscan Formation, `'�;ir�.r !� ,� `ter yr�Yf�•.. ��,,f ' .� Lovejoy Basalt _ f, ti r _ .= rr GEO-LGG!" OF AN Chico Formation * f r� - - er. n�, kr+ �� ALONG LITTLE: CN?CO i q xty d/T�'� v boundary between s ; ;r�,, _. r , ;,+ h: boundary " ,' rock units; dashe - »;''' ^,-. �T; t4 ,{, i CRM,' At�J7 DOS ?,ILL �' i .:r where obscured ; \ �� ;++ r rk �.3p , i , y. !" IRI DGE fractures visible on air photos;dashed. where taken from Harwood et1981 _ �- property boundary, Y kYi �-. , ,i �: W • --- Y� location rox�.ma app to , /�/ r +r' . ± i�•"�..'-. ' � a..�`` t,� :�� •ti �i ,`-•N�„2 ) r —.L. r: `4 »�� '�.�, Fes^ 1 o il. '.. -- � .... — .� it 7-+... "i . J.,+\ �. ��,� Y,y,r i+ .,. � `..' .. •.t '1"r 1 � '. f r t,�..,5 i C � . - s � � � `-." ,� .,�-i... �,,,"-�,ti•. f . r " i ", ! !4 _•' \.7 ri 'p -f r y%�/ + 'a `\ 7.ti ,, r r 37a.� r �t' ,:.. ' "`.i . .-.^"'- . f �� ` �-' ' • 1 !t � .' `,+ t I i r 1^ / ;:.i�-r``!'. r ��r �r� 'i : \ �,r--�-� ' `�..+�. %� ♦ ♦ x c s µ... r:..- ,�-,1 rr � ,,,,jr- }., •� rr _+ -!+V r i " �`� ori. r ., . , .. ."w' ( , `4 ,~ + ..''" C "` vY +. � � . ;v.. ! { i ` � ` ' �+ '' ` •1 1 d J �1 ,% nf� ''�'�—� •�-'r•y' , *fit` � �s.'�.: ` ��`. ��y..: +•../'y'�, v � 'x r' � r .'� -�+';. » r\�. dra' f{t � �: 's' /.•�,/.--�` i '1' � I .. ��ti.36sY, :� p �.-..��.r•-.. 0 _ O r t r y fir +,� � 4 '= `� -. f r '..1 �'I + r�:, "� � q � n�.� xr5 �^"ti.-.•+`". �� g i,' r 6 yrx i �A, LYbON ti tl� - �,y� xl � i f ,'i2 ► � �--.�' i s _ &blogist r - w , f r� L ty,• .�:r-" ` - M x- ,i r�i �Y Y.) K r"_`. /` 0�i `' '1 #y�•V �`.- r y. .y Y• i i 'i i..—�.;-,. » f �` �` YKw ' + yr..r. ! :, y � r 1 _Ary! .+--_.y..-► j L t Il 'Z7-- LQ02000 ' Gr y + '�` / �r• '�' ,y y'.r �. ` x ;. + �--i Sral:ei f 18 i• y ..,<� s -a..✓ r x � 1� r 1 X/// ,Y +f„ ..•'� '. + !'��r✓' . , \ •. z-.••,+%" 1 y'. �,.-!' �. � i , - Y '-Q Fj •. ,,.' '%1�%!! `� j�X .. r ItA /+, f '�� v�•. �. f� �',i���ll 'a`` '",.r � .} �,• , Seismicity and Sensitivity to Seismic Hazards The site lies in an area which has experienced several earthquakes of moderate to significant 'magnitude and intensity, including a magnitude 4.6' earthquake north of Bidwell Park in 1966.and several smaller ones within six miles ofthe str following the 1975 Oroville earthquake. The site lies within the northern extension of the Foothills q g R Fault System and can be expected to experience an earthquake of magnitude 6.5 (ichter ' scale) 'with is epicenter at less than 20 miles: q activity p ssible on this site include a horizontal ground Hazards from earth uake aetivit o shakingor acceleration_ of 0.2 to 0 :4 g, although the actual severity of shaking would w depend on distance the epicenter and other factors. This acceleration corresponds approximately to ;an intensity of VIII on the Modified Mercalli scale. Rockfall as a result , of earthquake shaking could be a" hazard only on the canyon slopes; other secondary such as liquefaction, lurching and slumping would not be expected on this 'seismic hazards site since most soils are not of the loose, granular type, that is vulnerable to these effects. A possible exception would be areas near the intermittent stream courses and ' the banks of Little Chico Creek: D. SOILS* aii�ornia Ike-gt: of �yrestx'S mapsel?o�r the site to be c�avereo by the Toomes-Fentz -_ S association. Within this association of soli, types, four soil series are expected to be .soul present: the Toames, Supan, 'Stover and'possibly the Cobleigh series. All are of volcanic rock'`parent, materials of the Tuscan Formation; "the Toomes and Supan Series are the most commonly observed on the property. Volcanic rock outcrops are limited to the: extreme east on the bluffs over Butte Creek Canyon.; I " Characteristics of these main soil types are summarized In Table 1 The soils have a tion throughout the site, as indicated from inspec variable distribution g tion of soil profile logs, utility tre"rich excavations, cutbanks and road surfaces. Thus the depth; per►"neability and of of'� the soils vary � frotn�locati cla., conte y n: Y ort to locatio *in October of 1981 Jon Anderson, `soils engineers completed 'a preliminary soils is adopted from his findings" i in this se eti investigation on the site• the information on Please see Appendix C for this more detailed report: -6- • HYDROLOGY Surface ;Hydrology r property. _eek pland area ho erennial streams . p is are located an the Runnoff. from this u drains on the cast 'into Butte Creek. and to the west into Little Chico Cr The land surface slopes slightly to the west and southwest, so most of the drainage follows intermittent tributaries into Llttl-�. Chico Creek. A major tributary to Little Chico Creek forms the .ravine on the property's northwest and north boundaries, while a second drains the property from the south, beginning at the small irrigation {gond: Subsurface Hydrology � The volcanic la-'ers of 'the Tuscan Formation have a variable water content, since permeable and impermeable .materials with varving clay content, grain size and pore sizes are inter -layered. The presence of a well, on the property with an estimated yield of 60 gal/min, from a depth of 85 feet indicates that some praundt w', r i� present in the upper portions of the Tuscan Formation, e, Lov p j .- Basalt at abc'.:` i - The lower Tuscan near its contact with the impermeable, e o�- x by another fi 900 feet eS.evation accumulates .larger volumes of water. .This is indicated v; all on the proprsrty yielding 225 gal/'min. continuously from a depth of 770 feet the .veil -head is at about 1600 .feet elevation). Beneath the `Tuscan, the Lovejoy Basam lt, Chico Foration and: Sierra bedrock do not contain substantial amounts of Water., Quality f oa excellent, as evidenced by the Water from the Tuscan Formation wells is • p mptanyi these test results, on file +;ith_ _ te,ts done for incur oration of the mutual water co the State Corporation Commission and included in this report as appendix I, shoe' that the wen water meats all standards for potable Nater supply, the Trascan iort�a�%t�xi; n°r~h a.-, et^� oIL �"iii�.uc0 i serves grC3tI.Y dwa-ter x'echal"�� iC3r wells 1�1 the�iT� �:3 F. CLIMATE The project area, lying' above the Sacramento Valley and belong the Sierra;Cascade y►iountain range cam lex, is considered a. foothill region with a 1-Ieditdrranean clmatic ret'ime cohsistiAg of hot, dry summers and cool, ainy winters, The nearest we&ther g� University Farm and stations with siibteyntial Inng-term �climata Kcal da�a are the Chico the paradise weather stations, The project aCoa. is in a transitirn done between the tw o stations for most elirna.tic faetoVs: _ TABLE i SOIL TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS' r. ,soil S O I L TYPE Char tic Toomes Series Supan Series Stover Series r. Gravelly loam Cobbly loam Cobbly gravehy loam surface ,,oil Gravelly Ioam Cobbly-gravelly Cobbly grave aY clay Subsoil clay loam 4-20 inches 20-40 inches 20-40 inches Depth Permeabilit�� llodarate ivlc derately lo�v Moderate Erosion potential Slight Moderate pmoderate Drainage Goad Good Goad General for Toomes-Pentz Association General flan-Seismic-Safety Elements) _ r (From RUM County Liquefaction potential LOW Landslide potential Low to"'ti�toderaLe LoW* E,: ansiveness potential Subsidebce potential Loi _ Erosion potential High - * Moderate rating supersedes since site soils contain somtwhnt more clay than average in region N Itatit�g is based on steefness of slopes in general arearatings of above series (slight to mo&eate) supersede since they are more site-s eci c Source, J. Anderson, Soils Survey (see Appondixt C). t lII) The area's usual wind pattern is southeast to northwest (see wind rose in Appendix D), but it sometimes shifts to a north -to -south wind corridor as warmed valley air and cool canyon air flaw u and down the ridges and creek canyons; Generally winds Y p g Pas no storm systems tend to scour the area in the winter, whereas summer air is more stables . The project area is located at the elevations where the valley floor -based autumn inversion layer ends, so tf at depending on wepzber conditions, the property can occasionally be included under the inversion layer. However, because the 1 ye p inversion layer usually ends at 1000 feet t ievation, the property 7s for the Most. Hart above it ,and exposed to more ventilated conditions. Precipitation Usually occurs as rain, although occasional light and quickly, melting snows can occur at this elevation. Over B four Year period from 1974 to 1971, Paradise (slightly higher elevation than the project area) received abouts inches of precip,tt.tion annually and Chica received an average of about 20 !Achey annually. Based on its .: intermediate elevation the project area probably receive,; b 0 inches � P J !� Y an average of about 4 of rain per year. Temperatures Temp ` oothilN do not differ, from those in the: valley as markedly as in . the f dop recipitation levels; both Chico and 'aradisd c.ta_tions have recorded similar - temperatures, ranging front average lows Around 3d=350F to summer highs averaging 90oF with ternpera:'tres coinmonlY reaching over 1000 in both the foothills and the valley. (Refer to Table 2 for annual temperatures anuprecipitation leVeis Variations in the., site's canyon -and ridge topography Would be expected to modify, local wind speeds and directions, precipitation levelsi and temperature levels. Ridge tops would experience difference microclima.te conditions Trot» the valley and canyon bottoms due to differing degrees of e tposure to wind; solar henting moisture retention, and other factors, Q, AHL QOALITY The existing air quality at the proposed project site and its vicinity in the foothills Above Chico is generally good. The site, is located in the Sacramento Valley Airl8asitj which as a whol- is not in Oompliartce with Stato And Federal (lila A) standards for ozone and carbon mono. (CO). '1'he site itself lies MaInly above the 600 to 1000 foot elevation under which the combustion -generated pollutants are seasonally trapped by the valley's tomporature thvCrsfon.'This stuffed -based inversionP eo ei�ates froh) S ombO ptt~�.r �s i I' through January, confining all valley --generated emissions to the valley floor. Summertime periodically brings greater air stability and similar pollution confinement in., the Valley. The nearest air quality monitoring station is locatedin Chico. Records from this station show stead decrease in levels cif n, ove^all decrease with short-term Y CO,� fluctuations of ozone and particulates, and steady levels of hydrocarbons. All mobile sources (mostly ;motor vehicles) are responsible for the majority of emissions of CO hydrocarbons and. the precursors to ozone, while agricultural. burning is the other major source of these' pollutants. Atriicultural tilling is the 'main source of summertime exceedances of particulates in the valley. Air quality problems in the valley or in the , foothills specifically related to traffic on Highway 32 have not been reported. Air quality at the site is expected to be markedly better than that recorded at the Chico monitoring station due to better air circulation and a larger volume of air available for , mixing; this has bean demonstrated by the relatively lover recordings from the Paradise ozone monitoring station at about 1600 feet elevation. TABU 2 ' CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA ANNUAL SUMMARY Paradise Chico Year Average Annual Total Annual Average Annual Total. Annual Temperatures Precipitation Temperatures Precipitation in OF in Inches in OF in Inches 1918 59.9 63. t 8 61.0° 30.69 1917 160.00 35:09 00.50 15.11 19161 60,60 18.E c' 60.10 10.40 1975 58`.46 50.8 4 58.70 1974 59.66 1973 59:'30 82.8 California sectionl Oeeanio and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ClimAtO09 dal Data H. NOISE . n proposed p very low, , Existing noise levels ��n the BidwYell Hei��ht� Subdivision site are since the land is not being used intensively by humans, i5 surrounded by open land in a natural settini; and is over a mile from Highway 32 . which is the only source of traffic noise in the vicinity. This site is not near any of the identified noise sources on the County General Plan Noise Element flap. Background noise levels at present are probably close to 40 dBI the noise level measured in a wvildlife area near a county road (Butte County General flan lotoise Clement Table About 100 trucks per day ) (annual average) travel up and down the grade between Chico and Forest Ranch, true} noise should, not carry significantly from the road to the proposed project site: I. LAND USE Site The proposed Bidwell Heights property is mostly open land, with the exception of e vineyard of approximately, 68 acres in the center of the property On the east side of the vineyard are a small irrigation pond and well; electrical power lines traverse the property from northwest to southeast, ending at the well by the vine yard; The land is ottlerwise unused by huma;lg, witn`no structures except that a system or unpaved road is present on the site (see Figure 3) The Butte County General flan Land Use Designation for the site is Agricultural -Residential, excebt for the southern '80 acres Which is designated Open - Grazing, 'but inter refect g, p as Agricultural -ke. _dential tine to its -ridgetop topogranhy Surrounding Lands The propertyis surrounded by open lands With scattered residences. Parcel sizes of r s with several parcels. of over 100 at nearby, adjacent properties start at fiw e acres, w p �' The'surrounding County General flan Land Use DeSignation is mostly Open -Grazing, with ' strips of Agricultural -Residential along Little Chico Creek` to the southwest and in. Butte Creel: Canyon to the east. ;forth of the: property* is open iand with scattered residences and the town of Forest Ranch about six miles ap Highway 3"2* To the wrest, open land With seasonal brazing lies - � ` e =, with lliglr �v :i;r :32 along the west; to the West of either' stagy of tittle Chao Creel. iii hway 32 lies the northern most ce tent of Bidwell Park, a low intonsity reereationai use: along Big Cliieo Creels. The. CitV Of Chi0d seven ' .mhos to this west, is experiencing increased. residential and eommoroial development on its eas side lfaeln9 the foothills). ' The land south of the property is rangeland with soattered home: ites? three to fouls miles I further southwest is Stilson Canyon (the lower portion of Little Chico Creek canyon), where residential densities are higher. To the east of the property lies Butte Creek Canyon with its increasingly dense rural. -residential development past the natural canyon he east on the lands is the town of Paradise, about three miles to t next ridge. J. VEGETATION* Habitat The habitat is basically chaparral, at elevations ranging from below 1160 feet to abode 1640 feet; some elements of riparian habitat occur along ephemeralstream banks and seeps. , Disturbance History !. A number of unpaved roads have been constructed throughout the site, some with for four-wheel i gravel, others essentially suitable drive vehicles,: An extensive portion of the land along,a ridge in the center of the property has been cleared in the past few years, and a large vineyard has been planted on some of the cleared area. The chaparral is returning on the uncultivated part. A,, 'power line 'traverses the property from. northwest to southeast, ending at a well that has recently been dug. k rock crusher is located toward the west boundary of the site, and various items of .heavy 'o Meaium_ equiprnealt are scattered throughout the areae primarily along roads. Drainage ditches have 'beeri cbig, Fixes have occurred It, the, PaS'.L 'dnoleared lard is otherwise relatively undisturbed. Chaparral This habitat, which frequently internrades with foothill woodland, is well represented on the property. `lied species present include digger pine, several oak species, bttok6ye$ redbud and bay. Shrub species include toyonj manzanita, buekbrush deerbusha poison oak, scrub oak, silk tasst-1 bush, yerba santa, Oregon grape, and others. Herbaceou s species present include, several brodiaeas, pitcher sage, bedstraw-,, small - flowered dwarf flan rattlesnake Weed!, lotus California sandwort purple godetia Nool er's Plantain. western morning glory, lessingia, clovers, spikemoss, California soaproot, holdback fern, cudwee:d3 yarrowL, hedge, parsley, wild sw-eet pea, prickly lettuce, *This information is adapted from an October, 0581 ;purvey of the situ for geheral vegetation and mare and enda.ngored plants by l*ingsiey Storm Please see Appendix C for his complete report, containing a species list for both the chaparral and riparian habitats. -12� spurg , Prudy's penstemon,< gild buckwheat, tidy tips, Henderson's shooting stars', silver bush lupine, valley tassels, rush, and several grasses and introduced weeds: Riparian Elements of this habitat type, which is associated with streamcoursest include cottonwood, bigleaf maple, ,flowering ash, willow, wild grape and blackberry, ,shield'- bracted monkey flower, skullcap, cocklebur, ;hedge nettle, and others, on this particular property. Rare and Endangered Species No officially Tecognized rare and endangered species of vascular plants have previously been reported from this particular .property, bre# several such species have. been reported from within a: few miles of the area. Three species currently recognized' by the California Native Plant Society, as "rare but not endangered" have been reported from sites imed ately adjacent to the project area. farts of the property containing, steep slopes potentially coup support two species on "rare and endangered" Iists,, but the plants were not observed during the October, 1981 survey. Bidwell's knotweed (Polygonum bid.yelliae). one', of the taxa recognized as rare but not endangered, was observed at several locations in grassy openings on slopes throughout the project site. This' annual easily reseeds itself; growing in rocky outcrops K. ih'ILDLIFE ' Site Value As Wildlife Habitat As a partof the Upper Sonoran Life Zone,, this area, as a whole, is an ekcellAnt. wildlife habitat: The varied topography of the land and the variety of -species and growth forms of vegetation provide excellent cover and meeting sites for a great diversity of 'wildlife. Pine nuts, acorns, wild grapes, man an', berries, grasses, and buck brush 1 provide abundant wildlife food.'In general, these areas with the .most dense vegetation,: especially the intermittent streamcourses with trees and the dense chaparral, provide the: ' most food and cover, Next highest in wildlife value are the shrubby areas with occasloiW digger pines. Open areas especially the grassland with scattered oaks, are ' *On October s and St 19811 Or, Roger Leder.im of the California State university at Chico surveycd the property for presence of wildlife, including rare or endan ercd species. Ile also evaluated the atekils Value as wildlife habitat, and searched the literature for e:�pectod NOWlife to coMplemont his field :purvey. 'rile information in thin section is adapted from hiq report; please see 4pperidN n for snore dotall. the least valuable, although by no means useless. Grasslands provide food and shelter for a, number of anirrr.als; Wintering birds, in particular, are prow€ded with a great abundance of seeds here. The ponds Cone onsite ar,d one adjacent) and nearby Little Chico Creck' are y p e only sources of permanent water articularly impor�.ant to wildlife sines the provide the p resting`i migrating waterfowl. for ,many animals, and a arc � for m g g Wildl€fe using.. these water sources would also use the rest of the property as a forming and resting area, The site is included in the southern tip of a deer wintering area identified on the Areas of Special Bioi0gleal. In1pOrtanC4'7naj] Y` i�Butte County . Deer and deer trails are evident and abundant. Spoors of raccoon are numerous. Quail are particularly plentiful other, birdlife. No reptiles or amphibians. were seen probably due to the time of as is y g brates are li'�tely to inhabit the area ear and- the cold temperature. No endan endangered although the uncommon mountain lion is occasionally seen in this area. (L.T. Williams; pers. comm.). Please see Appendix: G fora list of wildlife species expected and observed On the site:. L. CULTURAL insouRcrss A literature search and field survey of the pre)perty fir evidences of both historical - - and prehistorical activity was carried out by J�ftmes Manning in early Nvven�ber; 1981 1 No sites had been renorded it previous endiX 1�1 - d in tent adjacent �in (see �,pp" r. `� recent archaeological surveys) but five prehistoric sites �,er�.r discoveredr surveys of «.000 acres of land to� the west ancT'south• all of t;lViannii�, 199 and 1.980 � � these leer within the danyon of Little Chico Cr eek: ite survey u.,e d transect and nd contour seamh techniques .r ber; 1981 s . to co v�� all theproperty �:iGept the dense chaparral .arid the Cleared areas. N0 evidence of early historic activity was found. 'file only evidence of prehistoric activity obs tved was one small bedrock mortar in one of the intermittent drainages in the southern of the property. This would reflect the probable use of, this property dor game' portion n g g hering; Which would have left very few traces behind. Since liu vegetalatl€kelt' ntarreasn all of property to contg,n cultural remains have been thoroughly e.csmincd tti«ith only tills one finding, it is concluded; for Lila purposes of thus report that Y lacking n cultural remains, either er historic -or prehistoric. the property is i &'I. tRA'FVTC AititD CIPCUtA'TXnN Beads serving the site and vie€nityI tit present eons€st of State lTigh�vay `32, bee til€ll ' Road, two recently constructed project roads (Canyon Shadows, Wilder Road)and several, Unpaved roads and jeep trails running throughout the site and in some cases connecting this site with adjacent land (see Figure 3).' Highway 32 passes the propertv about a, mile to the west.: This stretch of the t;�ohway between Chico and Forest Ranch carries about 000 vehicles per day (.ADT' -average daily trips); 'q.G percent of which .etre tt'ucks (CA.LTRAINS, 1980 annual average), substantially les;:.,tan its estimated capacity of 15,000 vehicles per day. The section past, the site climbs a. steady grade of ap rr uxfmawe�y threepercent, rising -300 feet in about two miles: Doe `Till -Road t�egins off Schott >�oad, ;vi7ieh Intersects Highway 3�. near Forest ranch; it extends dawn Doe Mill Ridge through the site's easternmost edges, through open laud south of the property, and ends east of Highway 32 at an unrepaired washed- out bridge, Schott Road is paved only for a short section at its intersection with. highway 324 here ® the County has traffic counts of 22D :ADT, Which is near capacity tot this otherwrise ■ gravel road. Doc N1111 Road itself is,entirely unpaved. The County has no traffic counts for it since it is not a' public road,: but it i,� estimated that it carriesa, minimum of 100' ADT Other as yet un laved :roads existing throughout the project site We shown in Fi The capacity 'remzining in these schools, as of the 19$1-82 school year, is as follows: Parkview Elementary has room for another 130 pupils, 'Chico Junior High for another 300; and Chico Senior Hiph for another 400 to 500. The schools are not uncomfortably close to capacity now, but could reach capacity before the proposed project residents need the schoO:3 if other Chico area subdivisions fill up in the interim (for example, California Park and the Village). Through an ongoing demographic study of oop�Wation growth azzd distribution, the District reviews school capacity y. arly. Should a school 'become overcrowded, the District would change .attendance boundaries as a ,first option to redistribute the student load to the 'schools with greater capacity; second and third options are building temporary buildings and year-round schooling as schools become overcrowded, since funds are not available for 'building of new schools: Police Protection Law enforc¢:nent_and once. protection as provided to the project area b�* the Butte-- Law p p pr p l County," p , g pat of assigned to the area; 5heraff's fie artm.ent. �t present there 1s no regular air the Sheriff's patrol cars on the East Beat in Chico respond to site vicinity calls from their location at the time of the call, In addition to the driving time from Chico to the site, additional delays in response to emergency calls would likely occur, since the patrol also be attending to multiple calls in Chico at the time. The Sheriff's service to car may the entire area north and east of Chico is recognized as inadequate at present; the patrol, the Forest Ranch/Butte Meadows area has been recalled from so no calls could be answered from there either. At present: there are five Sheriff's Department personnel assigned to the entire region o€ the County from Butte College to the Tehama County line, Two officers are assigned to the Paradise area, 'but they do not serve the Doe Mill Ridge area because the rtlads throughout Butte Green 0an.;aon are nom passabi+.- it t+tiaztex . Pilre Protdction The site and 'immediate vicinity is classifier) try the Oilifornia Division of Forestry (and adopted by the Butte County General Plan Safety Element) as a High Natural Eire ' Hazard area;; the site is surrounded by areas of Hull to E%treme iratural Fire Hazard, The Butte County Fire Department staffed by State Division of Forestry personnel and havit.q aedoss to all Division of' Porestry'fire-fighting crews and equipment; serves the project area, frdrd Chico-based fire stations. XearWrout d servide is 'pi ,vid'e4 by the stations listed in Table %vith their ,ongine response tunes; all-season volunt ler service is also avalliahle from the Potent ltnoch station No. �4 and Butte County Volunteer Pire Compfany No. 2 Cres onse time seven rn nutes illus time for volunteers to travel to the truck from their homes). The Forest Ranch Division -of H"oMstry station provides additional fire protection in the summer months only. The Division of Forestry considers the level of fire protection for this area to be inadequate at present, and may, consider a new fire station to be built in this Dart of the County to improve service as population , '- :growth increases with time. I TABLE 3 ' FIRE STATION' RESPONSE -TIME." Station Response Time to Site (Initial respunze for fire Lighting vehicles) No. 44 (Fair St.; Chico) 15 min. _ - 'V1o. 42 (Coh asset Rd.) 16 min. No. 41 (Nord Ave,:) 21 min: Source: Butte County Fire Department O. UTHJTIES Gas and Electricity No natural gas lines serve the project area at present. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PGhE) does maintain power lines up :Highway 3?. ,and has extended three--phase 1 +ower into the site along. the route shavrn in Tigare S. At present these lines provide pact' er to a pump at an exisiting well for irrigatingthe vineyard on the site. This eXisting power would be extended for use in the proposed project. Telephone ele h ,Pacific T p, one Company maintains telephone pole lines along Highway 32 past the site and could provide telephohe service to the project. area. Water Supply Two wells have been developed on the site: one large deep operating well. (770feet deep) arid, another smaller test well The former has, pumped 406 gal/min. fora three. eriod month p and now is equipped with a pomp which produces 225 gal/m' n: on an ongoing' ' basis, This well provides irrigation water to the vineyard and is located near the small pond at the vineyard's east end (see •figure .3) on hand owned by the Buzz Tail Water ' ' r. 7 cent parcels. T11G' smaller tvat.er cOm an formed, to admin.' tot water on these and ad company: Works, a he we'll is located about one aourth Mlle due east of the vineyard tv.ellr P� , it WAs,drilled with a test drilling rig and will produce an estimated 60 gatl/min from an 96 foot depth: -17- e V ENVIRONMENTAL IN[PACT'AND MITIGATION A. GEOLOGY AND SOILS IMPACT Introduction - Material in this section '(with the exception of the Section on erosion) is taken from t the October 13, 1981° geological site reconnaissance report by P.A. Lydon. Please refer to Appendix B for the y pF e report in its entirety as well as for a complete listing of the ' references cited here. This report indicates that tq.bsidence, loss of mineral resources, erosion, and volcapisni are not likely to pose significant problems, whereas expensive soil, fault displacement, rockfalls and seismicactivity might pose significant geologic. hazards. Geological 'Hazards ' Subsidence. Rock types present on the parcels are of a type in which extraction of subsurface ' fluids will not result in subsidence (widespread lowering of the ground This conclusion i; the same as that reached in the County OemI r i a1 Plan (yTap IIIre) 1a Butte ;ounty 1971). , ' Lads of Mineral .Resources. Field examination showed. no evidence of mineral deposits or sand and gravel on the site, 'The tovejoy liasalt is being used as a source of crushed rock in a 'small quarry located off the property access road; about 800 feet south of the Little Chico Creek crossing If use of this quarry is ;discontinued after the - property is developed, alternative .sites oan be developed upstream; as the Lovejoy is exposed in the canyon walls for about three miles north of the property boundary. Erosion'. Tlie erosion hazard of Toomes soil is rated a`fi thigh►i by the Soil, Conservation Service (1967), based at least in part on the moderate to steep slopes in the area. Under natural conditions' erosion activity is low on the upland surfaces of Doe VTiil Ridge] and moderate on the slopes of the lower Tuscan. Under conditions of development activity, erosion in all areas can be expected 'to increase, especially in steeper portions , of the site. Most erosion Would take place during Construction; grading: for roads, especially side -hill cuts, can contribute to both tivind and water, erosion. Some erosion could also take piaea after project development from unrevegetated cut and fill aroyls around homes or along roads. Brosioh can also occur if drainage channels receive significantlyincreased storm runoff' and their banks ;erode` into gullies under the force of the s ormwater his t y p : ��ould be Unlikely. .tin acts of erosion include loss of topsoil] !, alteration =1$- i of landforms due to mass wasting (in severe caves), and siltation,of streambeds whicri inter`eres `with aquatic life. Erosion is not expected to be a significantroblem in p this casebecause of site: topography and project design. Most of the project area is flat or nearly flat upland , easily erode. .Erosion activity from construction and road surface which would not building taking place on ravine slopes as well as ongoing erosion froth runoff, Would be prevented by measures outlined below (see section on Mitigation). Voleanism A generalized analysis of volcanic hazards in the United States (Mullneaux, 1976)indicates that the site-' be subject to 5 to 20 cm (2 to 12 inches) of ash from, a ►'large'► eruption in the Lassen Peak area. A rgarge"' eruption would be one that erupts' about four times as much material, as was erupted in the May 1980 e,;uption of iVlt: St. Helens. The probability that such an event will affect the siteis very lvw, because it would require that a large eruption, unusual in ,itself, coincide With unusual ' due -north high -.level winds. Expansive Soil. Shrink -swell behavior of Toomes soil, is classed as low (Soil Conservation Servicer 1967). On the upland ridges the scattered presence of soil mounds and, .rarely, shrinkage cracks in soil Indicate that shrink -swell activity is moderate. Fault Displacement. There is no evidence of an. active fault on the- site. -- Howeveri ' as described in the section on geology, some of the lineaments visible on air -photos are probably faults; furthet•, although the age of the 'last fault activity in the lineament zone: is not known' the , possibility exists that is recentenough for the lineaments to be viewed' with some concern. Landslides and Rockfalls. The County General Plan rates the relative risk from p erste : otos, and coverage landslides on the site as mod '► Ex of low-level air h of most of the property on the ground, failed to reveal: any evidence of landslides: Even on the steeper parts of canyon walls, the strength of rock units appears to be great enough"to revent slides from developing, Rockfalls do occur, however. A irackfall is the rapid fall.; at least partly through airs of single or multiple blocks of rock. Erosion• -resistant, cliff -forming layers of mudflo,v debris in the Tuscan Formation are underlain by softer, more erodible sedimentary layers. As erosion of the soft material undercuts the hard layers,material in small cliffs breaks .away along hear -vertical: fractures and tumbles downhill: In p .. p Oddest small bvulrier sized feces of mudflow material are scattered over the surface of the lower dhtl sln to sedimentary lave ' � r . , such, rQci: debris must have fallen and then rolled or, lid to its present it rs• p position, coni -19- i Earthquake Activ;it A primary effect of an earthquake is round shaking, the -, y p y . - that, ^ n result i damage o buildings, horizontal and vertical vibration of the ground .ha C -A n a ge g , pipes, storage flanks, etc,, Secondary effects includ,c liquefaction, lurching, slumping, and rockfalls LiquefaeLloii, which can 'be a problem in loose,granular, saturated soil, refers to creation of a liquid -like condition in soil by vibration. Lurching an. d slumping, which are most severe in loose, granular soil, refers to formation of mounds, depressions, and , large cracks by vibration , Blocks of rock that. are can the verge of falling are sometimes shaken loose during an earthquake:: Because the loose, sandy, clay -free types of soil most subject to liquefaction, lurching, and slumping are not present on the site; except perhaps immediatelyalong intermittent stream courses, these processes do not constitute a significant hazard on the site. Rockfall could be a, problem in laces. d shaking depends mainly on the distance; The severity g p y to the causative earthquake, the strength of the ear thquake, and the nature of the soil andr rock at the affected site. The strep th of earthquakes is expressed as d g y xp magnitude (13.ieh'ter. scale), and.. the severity of ;damage in inhabited areas 19 expressed as intensity (Modified Mercalli. s^ale). Because the site lies ;within the northern.. extension of the Foothills Fault System, and because the System is ,generally considered capable of producing a magnitude 6:5 earthquake (evidenere from numerous private and public studies is summarized in Div. ' g� fi � p na to expect the site to be subjected to Mines Geology Staf 1'9T3), �t Is reasonable lea�ni o ag q p p e ground immeciratetlabove a m ntUde 6.5 eitrth uake with its e !center (a s of on th the earthquake source) 'Located at a distance of, less than 20 miles, studies correlating magnitude, distance to epicenter and effects at a site tBoore et:atiq19c"$) showethat such an earthquake n miles from the site could result in g acc elevation of 0.2 to 0.4 (20 hori--ontal ground ' g to 40 percent of the acceleration of gravity). This ,dorresponds very, roughly to an intensity of i VIII (R&ysy 1.980); The following paraphrasing of part of the Modified elecall scale indicates impacts to structures associated with earthquakes of intensity VI and greater VIt IWeak plaster and unreinf6teed adobe cradk; :windows break: Vitt WdAk, masonry damaged, tome cracks In good, but unreinforced, tnascnry: VIII.- Good but a �' damaged so . e damage' to , nretnforced masonrw , f'1 reinforced tap with ood mor g ati and, workmanship; loose 'panel walls thrown out. ..2Ij �itigati;.on t l.. E-osion Measures 1ncorpora'GE-,d as Part of Project Design Low roan cuts - maximize use of existing road alignments, minimize side nill cuts. Mlake roads conform to natural v�rnta: �s Adequate composition of fill areas, Measures to be Included- as Condi tions of perk it Approval Proper grading _ all grading done it atcordan:e with Chapter 7G of the Ljziiform ai:Lding' Code and tie pertinent recommendations found in the Erosion and Sed-ImenOvation Control Handbook (P . '.Amimoto,, May, 19781 Calif. kept. of Conserves xi.on Prompt reve,getatio., of con€xw� 4 *tion mites and rand grading: Use of detention ponds. or other runoff - control Measures to prevent gul.l;Oing of drainage And senizentaticn or strews. (Pertinent for speoiiic Expansive ,Soil Expansive soil can cause damage to building foundations, utility connections, anti ?ab driveways; lEitigations a employed inlu e char�ical tr�dt#IiYi st�il at . b_ ex to d t o bu,il:ading sites; avoidanvp of ,slab founda ions � placetbnt of sleep foundations below tile^ x soil Level at which expwsi.on o^-,urs, and use sof grading and landseapin practices designed `to mi.r.izizL shribk-swell. ac`tivit'. Engineering for proper .foundation design 1 the key mrasure IL-.o withstand the shrink--swell potential of the soil, 3. Fault isplacement A mfF3,gation that can be a pl.oyad to remove any possi:bijity of hazard from fault ,displacement is simply not �,o place: i.nhabi,teri strut,tures across any of the lineaments. . Pr iliP Lydon or another geologist wiIl >riew b,,4l.ding mites in ralatiora to tha pp 1411eamedtrs prior to tentative approval of ,a �'A=� or prier to iaanee os a b;ALl1n- permit on parcels ^rpatedby land divisiarx. 4. Pcoc.kfall 41.tiga.tions that cath be used to reduce hazard frog rockfalls inc, dot (l ) not buy ` din dwellings at the bas g- Nf in. tkYe Tuscan Formati oro g e e or near she edgo- of bla�xs especially where erosion leas beWan to undercut the bluff; :end (2) avoiding areas dolomalope from large blocks. A minimum setback of 50 feot is to be onforoed frau the edge of bluff: unless ,a geologist or engineer determines a lasser setbacks in acceptable» Earthquate Shaking it7.g tion tta8ures for earthquake-induced rock*tll are the same' as described in the section of 1&nislides and roo�1141s. impacts of Lateral motion in sWructuteo will 1,e r-.,overed 'by fallowing the design criteria of tee Pn iform Building Code,which identifies all, of* Northern California w being in aeizmit tome (earthquake intensities 01� V111 or higher anticipated), w�l- t !i n B. WATER QTJAI rfY/PUBLIC IJEALTH IMPACT SURFACE DRAINAGE I I y .Runoff Volume DevelopmF,„t which occurs ff-A owin project approval will cause an increase in storm g . i i runoff uantities because of reduced ground absorption due to impervious surfaces and q somewhat increased concentration times: one unit per' These im Pervioussurfaces°will be typical of develppments averaging three acres, i4lost of this runoff tivill be diffused, eventually draining to numerous minor r tributaries of Little Chico Creek. Minor portions would be tributary to Butte', Creek. Due to the small percentage of the project which will be covered with impervious i p^` surfaces in comparison to the sizes of the drainage basins, runoff volume increases are f{ expected to be insignificant. - - g . Su ch increases are further limited by timing 'differential between .flood peaks in different portions of the creeks which receive runoff. .For of comparison, the drainage basin for Little Chico Creek is approximately 2P purposes square miles in area at Stilson Bridge, and the 'Butte Creek Basin is 147 square miles in ,- a �� project y han two square miles in area4 area, at the Covet,e,s Bridge. The ro ect is slice, less t Water QualityP y water run ff, then Pollutants may be dissolved or picked u” and transported b storm _ S discharged into 'Tittle Chico Creek, and, to a much lesser extent, Butte Creek by surface drainage £lows: jV'hile the constituents of such. pollutant mixtures would be similar to r ould; b , lower and the intensity or Mated areas the concentrations e mo-e' densely pop , p p i of the stream tm acts much lower than where development deri.�e p magtypeg l to be found in uzban runoff Include! oils The Yp of pollutants which are likely 'paint residues, pesticides from dome garden use, sedirrlsnt, rubber and Asbestos particles, 1; o nitrates, phosphates, and other urban chemicals (primarily petroleum derivatives). the relatively low density (three acres per dwelling unit overall) of this project iowever,; means runoff pollutants will be more dilute 'than in the 'city, and will. have more open area for percolation into the Soil and for absorption by surface vegetation. For these reasons, less of the polluting elements dill reach the Stream than is the case farther west ` t . w I heire Little Chico Creek fusses through h g he City of Chico. Sceptic Leaohfield Suitability ate soil for "se p tic tank, leaching Purposes Over Soils investigations show adequ g p er most of the project area, so increases in nitrates and other nutrients should, even at full buildout, be within acceptable limits. The three acres of open area (average) per dwelling unit provides a large area for filtration and evapotranspiration of leachate. Leaching areas will be subject to review Lund approval by the Butte County Health Department, to insure adequate area are roil conditions in relation to proposed densities, so the natural nitrogen cycle can operate to reduce pollution potential. In 1 addition to ,septic tanks, nitrates originate from (1) underground deposits of decayed` organic material, (2) atmospheric precipitation, (3) fixation by bacteria and algae, (4) decomposition of surface. organic m4terial (humus), (S) the application of fertilizers, and (6) from animal and human eXcreted wastes. Nitrates are removed by soil absorption, yg g P denitrification (in the absence of oxygen), chemical reduction and vegetative uptake. The following excerpt from a 1970 study by Endel :Sepp, Associate Sanitacy Engineer; Bureau of Sanitary Engineering, helps put the anticipated impacts of septic tanks in perspective` suburbs having population densities In g p p of ten to 20 people per acre thee. total load on one acre of soil from se ` ptic tank absorption field:, is 100 to ` 200 pounds of nitrogen per year. When this is compared to the 200 to 300 ounds of nitro per acre applied annually to crops on farmland,_ of P nitrogen � g pP y which only one-half` is removed by crops, `it appears that `septic `tank' developments in semi -urban areas exert no ,greater nitrogen load on land than agriculture.t' (i.A.R.A. report on Paradise fines Surface Water Quality, 1971.) For comparison, the Bidwell heights project anticipates populations on the order of not. ten to 20 persons per acre as in the above study but instead less than one person per acre on an overall average: For- this reason, if Butte County Health DepartmenC I requirements arc met, pollution from septic tanits is not pXpected to be;a problem. Ss`wage l�islos���: t -his de arttttex�t lies tevietged soil data for various portions of the rezone, area. Based on the data. and the Butte County Subaivi ion prznance 5taridards, We have a15 rtrved over 50 singl=e family dwelling residettt,ial lots Within the area. �linimtim lo,. sizes approved. to date have. been three acres With , lots five acres or larger., " pox mate re uxred m n�rrum soa depth Within. the .� '-;zed to date is four fee acre The appr ` �i area for a threat or 1ess, lot is four ,feet. Since the average soil depth obsery h t►asr!`oer A e acres in sizt� that can be approved may be lidiited , of lots less than three Site specific data may allow so�ie small lotapprovals. _23+: To utilize leachfield sewage disposal: system, areas proposed for 'high density such as PA -G will require proven soil depths of over seven feet located where tests indicate sewage ;o ill not 'perc on substratas and -subs; cent s�zxface: Since proven ' y areas with deep ,soil. depths are limited, the higher proposed density within the southern half of the rezone: area is not e:tpectGd to be taniforml:y practical. unless alternate .,.ears c sewage disposal are developed acceptable to the California State Water Quality control Board." Water Surtl y: "Cne water, well exists wit�rin the rezone area with a reported yield avec 303 gallons per mi.nu-a, ii adequate water storage is provided and individual water service referee! the, repoi ad wel I yield could serve a sizable portion of the rezone area. To minimize water sarvi=einterruption and to ,assure _ample water for emergencies additional well soa aces would have Go be ;developed. Presently insufficient well drilling has od+d- .rred in the area to verify water availabilit;t tiirbizghOUt the rezone area, is ;may �. L tcentiott is stream siltation resulting The other water ual'�� concern worL y of from eros on. This issue ins discussed in the section of Geologic Ra'Lards- -Erosion. 0. QTR Q AII—V Y 114PAC kir pollutant eaissions generated by the project include both the short-term e,qi8sions from eostructian and generated over the l.oz�g- ter : by bot nh stationary' and ;vehicular sour es. In genera , emissions generated on, the projact site would be rea` w `g us winds a' that alevaticn level, in contrast to teridispersedily odictrapping of emiSaivns�genarated by project -related vehicles at elevations below axa g a_proximateIV, loo feet, where air can be 8easdnall.y more s`abl.�. (Please see Appendix'D for a wird rose &td other more detailed Air Qua,l.3 - Impac information and cal.culati6ns. ) these cumulative impacts on the local Chico area and on the County Air Basin, level have been anticipated in the three percent per year growth assumed by the Catifornia Air Resources Board (C:ARB) in its ernissions projections; While the Air Basin is now a Von iAttainment .Areafor dzonei and carbon monoxide (CO), the standards (see Appendix D) are projected to be met by 1982, assuming, the projected growths simply through incorporation of required emissions control systems into all vehicles. Thus the project's traffic benerated pollutants, while adding', to the pollutant burden in the valley portion of the Air Basin, especially during the summer to and all rovers ons, are not expected. exceed those anticipated in the Basin's Non -Attainment Plan. If apprt ximately tarojL, p rlo-tnitds of the ct s westbound traffic enters Chico (the Gest heading either south or, north on Highway 99 for other destinations), a maximum of ,1628 vehicles per day would enter Chico due to the project. in terms of possible peak -hour congestion, about ten percent or 163 ears/hour would be added to the morning and evening ,rush-hour counts. A "hot spot" calculation, takinga given section of a commuter artery inside of Chico, would show the increment of CO emissions during that hour that would be attributable to this projects However, in the absence of a known traffic dispersal pattern) it seems more appropriate at this time to simply point out that the p proposed j Would contribute small roject's emissions, along with thoseof other ro osed projects wo g percentages; gradually _ increasing period of several years, to the Chico area = p ail within the accepted pollutant load. The project's emissions increases are expected to f model of threepercent per year anticipated growth, since the project would not build out, ' all, at once but over a 10 -to -15 vear period. Stationary Source Emissions 50 homes or . 25 tons/year as a The California Air Resources hoard (C�,ItB) has Used . 2. guideline of significance for emissions impact for �30,� amd THC; 250 °homes with their associated vehicle travel produce approximately 25T/yr vOX and THC. (The ARii's estimate uses it trip length between eight and 15 miles, similar to the trip length Used in this report.) At gbout':eight tons per year, the °project+s No and THC vehicle emissions would be so low that, even with the stationary source emissions from 385 homes added, these emissions are not likely to exceed the ARB's level of signifiaafice. At about 74 tons per year, tie vehicle CO .emissiohs ,plus 'those from stationary soutees may or MA hot be considered significant at the local level, but not at, the Air Basin le-ve-4 depending � y dispersal `nation on projected .levels ,.t 'the time ca'P acct for dis er5al and other_factars. Determi r 4 of significance Of CO and other emissions levels will be made by the CARB. with Consistency With NAP, PSD Regulations: As stated earlier, this project`s fro with should be in the magnitude and time of the County growth projections incorporated into the frame Non -attainment Plant :,Basin. Notransportation control stratE,gies have been adopterts e the NAp; however, the local Air Pollution Control District (APCD} suppo P • • em, The mitigation measure promoted measures such as the: Butte County Transit System. tions below) of providing a project transit ,us which Mould tie in (see section on hi tiga , rt of local with the County's Transit line yrottld . fit ,n with nhD s for support sources general mitigation transportation controt treasures. g i- program (with an would be enforced/impl°mented by the CA RB 1lotor Vehicle Emissions ro atn (� inspection and maintenance program likely to be reinstated in the next few years); r stationary source emissions would be overseen by the Butte County APCD. measures e No Prevention of Significant Detertoratton;�PSD} :Rule exists for this Air Basin (since' • llutants7. .. ately three it is a Non -Attainment Area for some Pollutants). The project is appraxlm miles froth the southern boundary of the Lassen Class I area; probability of pollutant transport to this area is low, since most winds are from the southeast or northwest :gid would tend to earrJ Pollutants to the north,and west or to the south and east of the volume of emissions, those produced by commuters, would be generated I area. The, main in the Valle* rather than. fiu,ther, away rn theloWer elevations, and would tend to remain be carried' up into the foothills �lifgatior►s= incorporated into project, design to reduce trag,generation, ,and therefore ' Nleasutes p all commercial center on site. The. emissions include provision of a s a buoron and sv n on> a regular schedule to transport developer is also considering provt�ton , (probably tl'ea-r Hig�iway 99j, fruit Which they project residents to a Highway 32 bus stop (p x w e Sate 'ounce Transit Sy.t„ ,AS �:oud use `he, Yhico urea 'transit System atti th the project Inct�eare, addxtar�r�� the n=bex_s of el.eL-leritary sohooln a w ch�.�dreu. s *.tool bus service Would a; be prow ded. Dr� •AESTHBTiCS IMPACT t��UTt �**� L y -,.�, a, , witht The Scenic Ht41 nh�vay� Element, of the $utte Count Gene nal Plan recd ntzes t p Al Ridge, , ''Butte County lias many areas of picturesque natural landsca esti, i�oe rral vegetation, and rock outcrops -including bluffs and buttes rverliaoRinb the its chaps i ' scenic canyons of Little Chico Creek and Butte Creek certainly qualifies as a picturesque area. The scenic values of the ,ridge are responsible in part for the area'sappeal as a setting for rural homesites. The site is visible from Highway 32 at several points although not for the entire length of the highway' because o► intervening' landforms and vegetation. At its closest point, the project is about two mikes from the highway and most of the site is four miles or more from Highway 32. The site can also be seen from several points on the Skyway With the closest being three miles from the southernmost tip of the project. Those portions of' the project which .are on or below ;the canyon rim (a small percentage of the p eek canyon floor. The project can also overall development) �., visible from the Cr be seen from residences at the -western' edge of Paradise which overlook Butte Creek ' Canyon some three to four miles east of the. BidwellReights project. Because of the large di�,rances involved, aesthetic impacts can occur when site ' develop hent or construction activities alter the natural appearance of a large area, This can happen through vegetation removal, road cuts and fills, excavation .for homesites, and the erection of buildings of a contrasting dolor to the natural landscape. Avtigations s Retain natural •✓egetatio'n in all designated open, space areas. 0 Revegetate cut and fill slopes to control erosion. (See nage 21) Select architectural styles and building colors �vhieh harmonize with the • natural. landscape I'his is particularly important %-them buildings will be risible above the skyl i.zte. 4 Conform net; road and driveway locations to time more gentle slopez to reduce cut and fill requiremoltty E. NOISE IMPACT Short-term The greatest noise gefieratpd by this project ur6uld be duringc sa►struct on$ which would take place over ari approximately ten-year period as homes and cluste. areas and ' their a CCe55 r6ad5 are built of Project noise generation would b in the first ear ` e most intbll5e period Of this coastrilcti^n related tlo►se� th l g y , When earth- isM'bv'"& equipment and ' other 'heavY vehicles Would be improving the tn.sljor roadways and some of the several minor 'roadways, Construction noise would continue i it0kibittently throughout the ,next and cluster areas and their access roads are built. In the quiet several years, as homes • noticeably raise the local noise would no y natural setting on the property, construction noise The area affected by this noise would depend on how widespread the construction levels. one time, on direction of air movements and on the topography of the ' at an activity was y _ construction site vicinity. Sbund carries and is more plainly heard in such a natural in some areas, vegetation and land masses can absorb much of the noise setting; however, site: During the first, most noise -generating phase of. project near the comstruction few would be exposed to the noise since ;residences would not yet be construction, people (in the proposed Isom -Drake project to the occupied. It is unlikely that residences offsite On site, be exposed to construction noise from this project. immediate southwest) would construction could :cause some' minor disturbance to wildlife` adjacent to noise sources. Some bird and mammal species may avoid the vicinity of noise generation for the duration of conatructioii in that area: Although construction would raise local noise levels, the impacts are not expected to be significant due to the limited intensity (loudness), duration and extent of the noise and to absence of residences or other sensitive receptors. .Long-term f various ro'ect components (see chapter on Project On an on-going basis the v _ ,p_ . ] ect `g g � , Descriptio of noise localized, at the source. This would .p tion) would. contribute low le ' apply tic)h nal -light-duty—traffic—on,_ the project's roads; to the rtsidenees or lu tersitthemselves to the commercial area and to other miscell ineaus noise residential • sources, such as well pump compressors. While none of the no geninated by the project should be at levels- o'r frequencies objectionable to the residen`u; of this or adjacent projects, some wildlife (birds and larger mammals) may avricl the places where • y, he residential �-Iuster areas their habitats border on areas of human Activit such as t .. with hi; or densities ot,tho h eroduoe en4cvihichr aul3 occasion ally objectionable The ro, `eet COTAPori P p � . kioise would be the fire station (Intended as art of the -Project) The sirens of the fire engine, although q%cite Loud, would occur so infrogttei2t].y that the dietuxtiance impacts to res' or nearby wildlife 'Mould: root be sl.�riificent.: - x y28y ' Exposure of project residents to traffic noise from Highway 32 would be minimal since the highway is not heavily, traveled and the 'project is over a mile away. :according to the State Office of Noise' Control's document Estimation of Comms lite noise Exposure (May, 1975), general traffic between 40 and 5S mph produces an Ldn (equ'Vialent to Community Noise Exposure Level, CNEL) of tinder 60dB beyond a distance of 200 feet from the highway's centerline. On site, this noise level would be indistinguishable from the outdoor background noise of 50dB (day) and 40dB (night). Residents may hear occasional heavy trucks climbing the, Va=le by the property as , air currents carry the sound in the project's direction. With 'about 6.6 percent trucks, a 1995 CALTRANS estimate of 3700 ADT on Highway 32 past the site would meanthat about 244 trucks per 24 hours, or about 10` trucks pet' ,dour, would 'travel past the site. According to ..the Motor Vehicle Noise Z,aws, trucks should be no louder than 90 dB at 50, feet from the road's centerline; with 4.5 dB reduction in noise level with each doubling of - distance, truck noise would be about 60dB or below on most of the site, assuming no earth mass intervening. Homes on the vineyard and on the ridge to the south would be maximally exposed, at about 59dB outside the house, since this location has a clear line of sight down'ta the .highway. This °noise level Would istill result in acceptable indoor, noise levels of 39d% since houses provide about 10dB noise reduction. 'I3omes north of the vineyard would be minimally exposed to truck noise, since the knoll (1337 feet elevation) by the Highway and the distance (nearly -two niiles) would attenuate the sound. Truck noise levels here and in the clusters in southern 'parcels down below ridge levels would be acceptable at below 55dt outdoors and below 35413 indoors Within Chico, project -generated traffic would add somewhat to peak, -hoar noise levels. A portion of a maximum of 2700 ADT would be added to the section of Highway 32 running through Chico,over a day's time this would' '' be on the order oI' 2•.10 percent of the projected 1995 traffic volumes there,, 86wever, since this and other subdivision traffic is all part of the estimated 35 percent per year gtaoWth roto of traffic (Butte County General Plein 'Noise Element, P+ IV -8) for this road seclon; the noise generdteo by traffic is also taken into account o, �enients' statenleht (p. IV -12) that this tra in the NoiS�. �l' ',projected increases to traffic volumes should .*4 cause. no significant increases in noise levels", , Conceptual'/ c) no urban development should be permitted. on Design highly' erodible land. '(5.13) d) the County should regulate residential develop Design/ meet in the foothills to facilitate the survival ETt� and migration of deer herds (Dept, of Fish and Game recommends 2D to 40 acre or Larger parcels 1 ;n migration corridors i 6.'B) i E. Safet. Element/Fire Protection Subelement 1. Circul a.tion Considerations a) in case of a major emergency or disaster, evacua= Design tion routes and major transportation systems must be located, designed acid maintained for mobility and safety (,, 2, b) b) ensure that road access for new development Design is adequate for fire protection purposes (Policy 7) 2r Vise Hazard Protection, the Doe hill Ridge area rated. Design Hi.glL to Extreme for hazard with marginal to no pro- teaUon - County lire standards a) make protection from fire hazards a consideration Conceptual/ in all planning, regulatory and capital 'improve- Design i ;cern for areas of y kt ai 3 hih and iex ureme`3 fire hazard (Policy '� , areas b') along g evelopin .areas Des ign inetihuielbrand333e`�tVamohe firehazardareas i 3) Concepta3'/ c) iiet;eri�ine thio level of aster supplies necessary fornet, development for moire protection purposes Design (Policy S) d)' regulate use of oortaaz,k building materials in Design areas of higher than., atwrerage fire hazard (policy, 10 F Ho i.sing t etent - none applicat le - G. Into se Element ^ none applicable ! It Soismie Safoty,tlement none appI;'Leable ' full, development could mane the area from the vineyard north unsuitable for :some of the larger people-shy wildlife species, mainly through o proliferation of roads and scattered habitations rather than direct removal of a significant area of habitat: Upland habitat ►. removed would be mostly new growth chaparral, With some Digger pine and open grassland, which are of moderate wildlife value,. and not a rare or sensitive vegetation ' community. Vegetation types ;removed in the southerly clustered parcels would be more varied composed of some chaparral, some grasslands, some oak woodland, and small amounts of ravine woodland, depending upon cluster piaeeirtent. Oak and riparian Woodlands could bo removed, in small quantities; these are the most sensitive vegetation communities from ant ecological point of view in that they, harbor the most wildlife and can�-ot readily revegetate once removed. Clustering will enable a deign that avoids prime wooded habitat areas and leaves maeimum amounts of natural land (see: `rl tiaat on Measure list). Indirect impacts to wildlife of both construction and oil-going residential use -would include: Road kills , 6 Poaching 0 Depredation by dogs Possible reduction of spring water in drainages downstream of ,project wells Other iiipaets'oi disturbance e.g.noise] associated With human activity. These effects would probably cause slight reductions in certain wildlife populations, especially those inhabiting or moving through: the portion zoned for tWo- and three-acre lots. Thus the Value of the lands just Borth and east of the vineyard .as a corridor for Waith-south wildlife movement could be Significantly reduced upon total buildout. , 141 Particular- the project 'lies entirely within 'the key portion o the last Tehama deer Herd Witter range, end wi, AL reduce available Anter ng habitat for this cmeciesi Since the deer's migratory ,routes have been blocked to some extent by developmeht further east (at Higher elevations Forest Zanrihi Butte Meadows area), the Doe dill i Ride �: g .area has eijer MigratoryMigratorydoeaw tfi pre=ia,t�us yesa*s 'The project area suppar'ts approximately 40 resident deed, rdariy of theee deer will be displaced with development, of the site: both through habitat removal and ongoing disturbance: Aquatic Biology impacts The project .area .includes about 1000 feet of an ;intermittent stream on its western edge and about 1500 feet on Its southern edge. If these streambeds are to be. included in road, home, utility line or other construction, a streambed alteration permit (a 1603 permit), will have to be obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game.. Impacts of erosion 'and sedimentation or of surface or groundwater pollution to the t i aquatic habitats these intermittent streams or of Butte or 'Little Chico Creeks are not anticipated to occur; see discussions in Water Quality Impact: and Mitigations sections. Cumulative impacts This Project Would result iii adverse l:►npacts`wpun foothill ecology Aich woul.c, ",be partially reduced by the mitigation measures on page 35-Local wildlife populations would be reduced.. These species mE.y adapt and adjust to, disruptions in their normal movements, as long as the surrounding lards remain as a source -Undevelopedof unrestricted activity. However; if adjacent lands developed in similar fashion , the foothills outside of Chico would become unsuitable for larger wildlife; thus upsetting the ecological balance. In general, the foothills are an important habitat, being a zone of transition between the valley floor and the montane habitats. Both plant and wildlife species i eed large expanses of undisturbed land in this transitional zone as a buffer frort extreme conditions (temperatUte) rainfall, winds) in the lower and higher elevations, In 'addit on; the foothills contain a flora and fauna of their own which are important both in their own right and as links in both valley and montane ecology. It is thus inlpor�ant to use mt�deration both in 'the spacing out aril in 3 -` the in t,ernal spatial configurations of foothill developments to retain as much nterc6nnected open, ace dspossible (measures to this end are listed Uri A P der YItigetion) an a regional scale, if dense ,residential developments are introduced into the foothills in substantial numbers and are located close 'together, foothill , eeology would be advElrsely ' affected even if mitigation measures as listed are implemented within each development, since no area would be far from human habitation. Rare or Pndangercd Species Sinde the rare' and endangered plant species potentially or actually growing on the project site ;grow on steep) rocky outcrop area which would not be disturbed by development, and tilled the one ani ual. actually found onsite; (Bidwellrs itnotweed, Polygonpm bidwelliac) easily reseed$ itself in its steep habitat, )mitigations for rare and endangeredplants are .not considered necessary by Dr. Kingsley Stern, who carried out rare plant surveys for this report. No rare or endangered animal species actually or pot inhabit the site. Suggested Mitigation ;Measures The va ue of the area as wildlife habitat is generally proportional to the variety and e density of the vegetation A5 well as to the water SUD 1 Thus to p y , preserve wildlife habitat, vegetation should be preserved .as much' as possible. The maintenance of 1 vegetation is also important in stabilizing the soil and =thus minimizing voslnni. Although fire is a natural. phenomenon which maintains chapar `al, and giwassland cuiamunities and helps y minerals, it is not always compatible with human habitation. But, removal of e chaparral increases the; danger o • . h f erosion and p6rhaps even mud or rock In coccal p rind be judicious.. slides; Thus removal of chaparral sh general, development should' use these guidelines to preserve the sitelt value for both vegetation and wildlife and to mitigate �poteritial cumulative impacts of this and other nearby developments upon the foothills habitat. 1, Concentrate development in cl.Azsters, leavir_g as much continuous natural open space as possible: this includes ;not building perimeter fencing. 2: Leave riparian corridors continuous; keep major development dlusters out of W6oded ravines through riparian zone setbacks as regio nrnended by the State p it 10 feet. Fish and Game Department; minimum setbacls 3 Leave connections between riparian corridors slid major open space areas. 4. Leave substantial connection of undeveloped land botwoon the Major ripen space areas. This would mean leaving an rr opens ace corridor through ubh lots: zoned Salt -2 or 8R-3 to connect habitat in the lower 40"acre parcels with open space to the north. 5 Include a variety of habitats (vegetatl,>n types) in the major open space areas. ' some chaparral, some, open 'shrub and ;Digger pine, some flat gras�lan,d, as well as the oak Woodlatid.and,d6risely vegetated ravtihes. 6. Destroy as fetti mature trees as possible. 7. Preserve the ,connection between water bodies (the Onsite ptfnd) and their drainages (the wooded ravine to the southwest), 8. Cross drainage beds with open bridges rather than engineetod fill arta dill�xerts� =a5=, w Use roadways wherever possible, to avoid cutting new roads through the g existing sufficient width to open areas. �onstr�xct aYacl locate access roads of s rr �;Ll",i.l.e.�. handle fife trucks and ether. e�ner�ency leave an un improved, low-density 10: Around the perimeter of de'veloment clusters, use :buffer zofoot or trail)., dors Leets on adjacent lands to incorporate. the Coordinate planning ��� ro , 11: eciallp leaving connections of continuous habitat among the above principles, especially projects.: ' mph ff pets', prohibit hunt � and post sne�d limits of �� 12. Allow no tree -roaming on 'project'roads. H. CULTURAL RFS©URCEs IMPACT remains of prehistoric Although this property was considered highly likely to contain a hunting* or food gathering camps, the f'-n''""''"` i Only one insignificant tno'rtar after , g the recommendation that j;i.chaeological clearance be thorough examination lead to granted for the proposed project area. Refer to Appendix A, IL TRAFFIC IMPACT occur me way as' would traff same , f a The impacts of Bic117e11 Het�hts on oforesidenti�.li areas would occur air P about 10 to 15 "years - and those on Hoer lIime gradtlallover as th.eyproject is built out - probably over Traffic wool d take the Would' occur in the context of other' such 'developments. .i.mpaets- y hway 32 , arsd within on li�.g place within the projcOt on local :Doe Hill Ridge ai^ea roads, ' Chico. Trip Generation ldout of 385 homes the roj cot would 'generate about At a maximum anticipated bili � p 2700 trips ,per day.* * Yp g i. tripg/day per unit is used here; although CALTRAS ,� trip aneratitn factor of too high: Butte County; in particular the Air uses 10 trips/day per unite this, me be _ Aollutiot Control District: tees 't since it more �!losely applies to a rural situation under buses would take conditions of high gasoline prices fig which people coa,tbinc trips, School Butte County Transit would also be available, further reducing , c6ndl en to schoot, add trip generation Vocal Roads is would us '`ll Road project resider e the local unpaved xoads, in particular Doe l�n� � to a m nor 'extent. cording to William Cheff of the Butte County public Works Department, flan Ultimate Art ADl' of 2 ��i� cars of which most will use Canyon Shadows Road, will prs� t, , , create safety and maintenance problems die to the minimal road stanclardi�s being used in the constrac;acr cif the main access' road- -ailed. on the outside of curves o�tththe rayon side of the road and sin the 'bridge sho*aid be iztstalled. A gravel road with �r ted amo?an t of traffic and grades tri'Ll ger.erate dusty and roe th riding character ,i L I`rj. . ist cs which will rrecraire' cor�start ��aintez�ar:aee.' T, l- access roads wound: be available nor emergenc; acdes in and out of the pr©fee' , wi4h proposed ta:e o�" knock -down gates at pro; �o M a-7 acdeSss; Such roads 'wot�d include Doe Mill Road to the north, Centerville Cap Road, and Dae dill Road to the so';th. Project Kntt _- _- StaKne District 3 office of CAIAPRA3WS (t.drysIrille), `feel that .some left turn problems may ac:ur atHiI ghttay 32 and Santos ;�a". although the highway isrelatively straight for good vision at this point, they felt that since in project residents would rs. Onto t'Owar . o L ,' d al lea" a pro oi.em could or - V.r 8,t times, be turilin g l.e,. u o_.to Highway 3 � partiruIar,.y with heavy vehicles t►�ing dc�r► �' . mpaets o ' constrt)ctiOn o, these Kadin vegetation removal anti drainage i:�provev;ents wo:jid cons t o1 s. .4 a .ox . s cs g: g �;odi, kation tithin the r;. ht-of-wa azso:iated with widening the iroad a this point - the . l grading woald ohange the land form The impaats w6uld he .t�.nc,; since very lot i�ea; gr" g sl ghtl ; . Er ssic - of the out slope should r=oacdr if revegetation carried out promptlyaTw a; „, ormwater d ain2�; as properly channeled (by terracing,'uairg pipe, etc. +:rhe�.o � plicable �; Highway 32 Hetwee e projectand Chico; Ck -C staff fele that the highway has ample OIL abouh 2,4a�J:* The most heavily used capacity' to handle the �aXiIWact pro ew^ the current traffic sctioa ofsighway 38 is at Chico's east edge. Even a� peak hour, volumes of 490 cars per hour are significaritly under C�fiRA�iS' design capacity of 9000 road: "phe addition of another few hundred ears per hour due .ars per hour for a two-lane p L � , r . t AVT for peak hours wo alci not bring th'e to this rojOct k�tt a guide of id percent traffic to the Longest on point, unless lather una%ticipatea traffic increases occur between now and project build out 4 This applies also to the section of Highway 32. between Santos Wati and Chico. Fibwever, since ether ret�adotzt' growth is �.rfor the project areas a small oposod otenti=rl exists that , ADT from this proje» added with traf "ic from °th" aridvects could elttetid' over the projected 1995 ADT of _ nor this section, of highway � bring the roan closer 'to capacity,. pro eroent, or o, would probably head.. east �4C It 90 perdett of 27017 of trips; l p ora Fi,,hway 32