HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 10 OF 21Fire department service levels nationally are rated on a scale of 1 to 10
(best to horst) in an effort to determine the cast of fire insurance for
property Wners. Any area not having fire hydrants is automatically rated a 9
on the 'scale. if"tbe fire department can provide ,a water tender, that
classification could be reduced to an 8. -
e count fire dx�partment is currently una
Th y ble to serve the project area
because of the lack of fire hydrants in the area. �3)neK fire station,
adequately meeting fire protection standards (No^ , i8 planued'neaI the
project area at the intersee�ion of East Avenue and State Route 32. The new
service area is called the: Vest Chico
rcelFire
Station
pm,cel fit Area d a
� .divisions to
mitigation fee of 75 dollars per pa
help support the cast of the new fire station. This station is estimated to
cast $)400,000, with personnel costs of approximately $1110 r , ) to $150,000
annually. Response time to the project area is estimated to be three to five
minutes (Hawkins, 1986, Tiller, 1986).
Schools. The Chico Unified School District nerves the City of Chico and its`
unincorporated areas. The school district has 11 medium sized elementary
schools and three small rural schools 'offering kindergarten through sixth
grade education. The school district employs 400 teachers, 250 staff persons,
and 55 admin�,strative or certified nonteaching personnel (Greater Chico
Chamber of Commerco, 1986). The district also acerates two junior high
are currently operating
schools and two high schools. These four schools
belowplanned capacity; however"; 'several elementary schools are currently
operating above planned capacity. Relocatables (movable classrooms) are used
throughout the district at elementary schools and it is anticipated that 60
relocatables will be used in the next five 'years to help meet the demand for
primary education (Matthews, 1986). With the ourrent and projected demands
for educational facilities, as a result of approved but not yet built
subdivisions, the elementary schools could not accommodate the expected 1,500
athewsy: 1986):
to 2,000 additional elementary students ( and students :are bus
M
Neal Dow Elementary School serves the project area
ed to
its location approximately three miles away in east 5th Avenue. Neal Dow
School currently has 411 students enrolled and has a capacity of 485 students.
Bidwell Junior His School serves the project area and presently has a total`
of 839 students and a capacity of 1,170. Bidwell is located at Sunset and
third ; Avenue approximately ,three milers Prom the project area. Chico High
school, located at Lincoln and hest Esplanade Drive, is approximately wo
miles from the project area. With an enrollment of 1,103, Chico High School
has not yet reached its planned capacity of 1,693 students. Future schools
1 is being considered in the
are
eplanned in the Chico area and one school d (Mathesrs,'1986)-
project
area but land has not yet been urchase
Other schools that serve the Chico area and Butte County are Butte Co=Unity
College and California State University, Chico.
Butte County maintains the roads in the _project area.,The
Road Maintenance:o but at this
stredt,s in the project area are ;in need of 'widening and upgrading,
time they are considered adequate to meet existing demand. The county will
maintain roads built within a subdivision if the roads are"built to county
standards. County road maintenance is funded by the gasoline tax (Mello
1986),
r 3:4_4
Libraries. The Butte County Library at East 1st Avenue in Chico serves all of
the Chico area. The recently constructed Butte County Library is housed in a
building designed to accommodate expected local housing growth past the year
2000. Funds to su,ppor the xibrary
come mainly from the Butte County General
d et cuts. Currently, the library adversely sundered by recent
Fund, Services aucth as the library �is�eunclerstockeden and understaffed with,
bug
operating hours reduced from est years (T-erry, 1986). _
HOR tals. Two ,hospitals currently serve the tlico area. Enloe Hospital, a
privately operated nonprofit facility located at 5th Avenue and Esplanade, is
Within five miles of the project area. Enloe Hospital has approximately 220
beds and is used close to capacity (estimated at 90 percent) (Calarco,`1986)'.
The second 'hospital serving the Chico area is the privately cwned Chico
Community Hospital, also located 'within five miles of the project, area. This
hospital has approximately 85 beds and currently is not used to eapac�,ty
(estimated at 60 percent or lower.) (Calarco, 1986).
Parks and Recreation- City maintained Bidwell Park serves the CitY of Chico
and its unincorporated areas. Bidwell Park covers over 2,100 acres and
Cal'ifora ��ate University, Chico in the center of the city,
extends from
-State
east into the foothills.
past Bidwell Mansion, and on for ten miles to th
Bidwell River Park is west of Chico along the Sacramento River and consists of
180 acres of unimproved state awned and maintained land (Greater ,Chico
Chamber of Commerce, '1986
.y
Chico Area Recreation and P&tk District (CARD) operates a community park
located southeast of ;downtown near State Route 99 and 20th Street All
ve been designated as recreation areas,—�Othe� recreation
bletatY areasnfncludethe
hsEast Side Little League Park at�Southgatd, off State Route
99,�and Chapman Recreation Center�gyloeateda 16th and B Streets. All
recreation "�area9"ae,6-heavily used at this time (Hughes', 1985). Butte County
is currently writing a Natural Resour«es rind Reoreation Element 'to be added to
its General. Plan. A discussion of park dedication requirements and in lieu
fees will be presented in the document (Brawn, 1986)
IMPACTS. The proposed project would increase the demand for public services
due to the
and utilities. This i�.ereased demand: would be difficult to serve rticuiarly
illogical pattern of parcels involved in the proposed'project, pa
with respect to Vater, sewer and atom drainage facilities. The following
discussions describe the impacts of the project on the provision of public
services and utility 'availability.
r Development allowed tmder, the proposed project would require up
Water SuuclY• .
to 86,400 gallons of 'Water per day, assuming 210 additional. dwelling units and
a demand of 320 gallons per day per unit (Earth Metrics incorporated, 1986):
The California Hater Services Company (CWSC) anticipates no dirti.culty in
providing water for this additional growth in the OrOJ6ct area. However, the
expansion of water_nerviee Would require. the drilling,of one additional. well.
u E ,.,.... _ .
iP from tYie .additional swell 6►ould continue to meet the standards of the
Nitrate Action Plan (.Grant, 1986)• Residents of the project area may, choose
to drill their 'own wells, which'would reduce the demand for water services
from the CHSC (Grant, 1986):
3.�W5
Sewer Service. An estimated 77,760 gallolls per day of sewage generiation from
the 270 new residences allowed by the proposed project is based on 90 percent
of projected water use. Since the project area currently is n,4t served by
sewage collection li es and the Chico Water Pollution Control Plant,
wastewater from project related development could be disposed of through the
use of septic tanks. However, the addition of septic tanks in the project
area could contribute to the ongoing nitrate contamination of area
groundwater. The city and county Nitrate Action Plan requires local agencies
to analyze the appropriateness of allowing additional septic tank systems in
the Chico area.. This analysis is currently being dome by the city and county
as part of the Sewerage Master Plan now under preparation,
if the Sewerage Master Plan concludes that the addition of septic tank systems
in the project area would contribute to the existing nitrate problem) then the
project area could be connected to sewer mains serving the Chico Water
Pollution. Control Plant: The Nitrate Action Plan recognizes that sewage
treatment by the water pc],lution control plant, instead of by septic tank
systems, is one method of reducing nitrate contamination of the groundwater.
Detailed impacts related to providing sewer service to the project area, such
as the potential inavailability of treatment plant capacity and costs
associated with extension of the sewer trunk lines, cannot be determined until
' the Sewerage Master Plan is cumpleted (McElroy; 1986).
If the sewerage plan indicates that an extension of a aewer trunk line into
the project area is necessary and feasible, considerable capital cost and
subsequent environmental impacts, such as:growth inducement would need to be
evaluated and mitigated. In addition, the installation of sewer service to
those parcels involved in the proposed project and the exclusion of ,,he
remaining parcels would be awkward and illogical (see Section 3.11 Land Use,
and Policies). Annexation or an agreement to annex
anpblY thelCitPlans
of Chico if the area -is -to -be served by -the city sewer
is -required
system which serves the region. Impacts of annexation, such as the change of
responsibility for the provision of public services, is not the ,subject of
this Environmental Impact Report. These impacts and others will be evaluated,
as necessary, .as part of any future annexation application processed by the
City Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission.
Cit of Chico and the
Storm Drainauec New residential development in the project area Would
increase impervious surface area from buildings and roadways, which would
result in a corresponding inereaso in stormwater runoff and the demand for
drainage oapaoity. As discussed under Existing Setting, Butte County and the
City of Chico are developing a storm drainage plan for the Greater Chico Area,
as required by, the Nitrate Action Plan. Development of one acre parcels would
re�ti3re curb; gutter and sidewalks, as well as storm4rains. The improvements
would cost the, developer $99 per lineal foot Of.front'age. The cost to improve
the project area c,-tild approach $9;060,000 (Edell, 1984).
Police Services. The proposed project would'add to the demand for Butte
County Sheriff's Department services and would require staff or, vehicles to be
added to the department (0.65 deputies based on the standard of one deputy per
1,006 population). The associated costs for this addition of services world
be a total of $28,60b per year (Grey; 1980. Increases in staff and vehicles
1ep j
also will be required due to cumulative impacts generated by futur ro eois
(Grey, 19$6).
3•u-6
Fire Protection. The proposed project would increase the demand for fire
protection services iu the project area. The lack of fire hydrants in the
project area reduces the firefighting capabilities of the Butte County Fire
Department. sA new fire station.(No 43) is planned. for a site near the
project area and could be Completed in two to three years if started ,
immediately. This station would need to be fully staffed to accommodate the
increased demand for fire protection services. In addition, Compemy,42 would _
need expansionin the interim. The number of additional volunteers needed. to
protect the project area Would be five to ten individuals. Cumulative
development in. the Chico area also could require increases in staff and
equipment in the future (Hawkins, 1986; Tiller, 1986).
Schools. The proposed project could generate 0.43 students (grades K=12) per
dwelling unit, resulting ;in an increase of 116 students (Mathews, 1986)• Neal.
Dow Elementary Schools which would serve the project area, is currently at 84_
percent of its capacity and is expected to reach capacity in the next year,
Bidwell Junior 'High School is presently at "11 percent of its planned capacity,,_
and it is anticipated that the school can ;meet the projected growth. Chico
Senior High School currently is used to 68 percent of its planned capacity and
is expected to be able to accommodate the additional residential growth in, its
enrollment area. The increased number of students generated by the proposed
project, therefore) is likely to significantly affect Neal Dow School, but is
not ,likely to affect Bidwell Junior, High. School or Chico High School (Mathews,
1986).
The proposed project would have,a cumulative impact on schools in Chico and
its unincorporated areas. As discussed under Existing Setting, the school
district anticipates the use of 60 relocatables to accommodate the future
growth within the next five pears. The district is also examining the
potential for new schools to accommodate, growth (Mathews, 1986).
Road Maintenance and Hospital Servic
c Development allowed under the
proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for road maintenance
and hospital services. These impacts would not'be considered individually or
cumulatively significant due to the relatively low increase ixi service demand
� alarco, 198.6).
expected b� these services (Edell, Cn proposed project would incrementally
Libraries. Developtaent allowed undo. the prop p j
increase the demand for library services Which are already operating below
adequate service levels (understoeked, understaffed, )reduced operating hours).
Thisincremental impact is cumulatively significant:
Parks,and
RecrP2,tion3e theedemandtfnrdparkseandorecrd project would
incrementally increa eation services. Although
the project related incremental impact would not be considered significant;
the cumulative increases in demand for parks and recreation would be
considered significant and would add to the need for in lieu fees for new
projects.
GMITIGATION YEA'SURES. The following;measu res are recommended to mitigate the
adverse public seeVioe impacts identified in this section.
r 3.4-7
Water Services
One new well will be required in the project area as a result of site
development. All Cal Water requirements shall be met. See mitigation
measures for nitrate contamination impacts
Sewer Services
Butte County and the City of Chico should require that new development
follow the recommendation
s of the Sewerage Plan now being prepared.
Butte County and the City of Chico should evaluate the potential for
adverse environmental impacts associated With a sewer trunk line
extension, including impacts related to annexation. if development of
the project area requires sewer service.
Septic tank systems in the project area should be designed to meet the
standards and requirements of the Nitrate Action Plan and 'sewer
age study.
Storm Dra
inose
Butte County and the City of Chico should implement the findin o of the
Drainage Master Plan study to provide drainage in the project area.
Police Services
Butte County should consider cumulative demands for police services and
develop an appropriate funding mechanism such as an assessment district
to maintain future level of service standards in the future. (The
feasibility of this mitigation measure is questionable because recent
efforts by the county VD raise revenues for this purpose have been
denied by voters.)
Butte County should: require developers of the project area to form an
assessment district to pay for the incremental impact ($28,600 ,per year)
onpoltee servicescreated by the proposed General Plan Amendment.
Fire Protection Services
Butte County 'ill 'collect 75 dollars per new parcel ;in the West Chico
Fire Station Benefit Area to acquire funds to build a new fire station
to serve the project area. _
Butte County should seek additional volunteers to staff Station 42 until:
Station 43 is operational.
A pressurized water system should be installed in the project area to
conform to the Butte County Fire Department requirementsy
Hydrants should be placed in appropriate loeatioaslmproVdment Standarto ds
standards defined on page 52 of the Butte County K
for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps$ and Site Improvements, Pursuant to
Chapter20 of the Butte County Code"+
.
e
r
Schools
Butte County will collect builder fees to use for support of UO Chico
Unified School District. The ordinance allowing the fees to be
collected has a five year time frame due to a sunset clause. In,
November, 1984, ;Butte County failed in its attempt to establish an `
assessment district to generate additional funds for new elementary
schools that are needed for the Chico area (Tuttle, 1986),
1 Road Maintenance
Butte County should implement the Circulation Element Policy to,develop
a system of off site development fees and/or development agreements for
road construction and maintenance, to allow project area roadways to be
widened and upgraded as future development occurs:
"r The standards defined in theL Butte County Circulation`Element (page 35)
and in the Butte County document entitled "Improvement Standards for
Subdivisions, Parcel Maps and Site Improvements, Pursuant to Chapter 26
of the Butte County Code" should be required for the roads in the
project area to reduce maintenance. The applicable standards involve
road, types R3 -3A and SRS -1, depending on specific development proposals.
These improvements would not be required for the proposed General. Plan
Amendments, but would be required when subdivisions or development is
proposed,
rLibraries
Butte County should develop a eountyWide assessment district to 'maintain
acceptable library service levels (materials, staff and operating hours)•
Parks and recreation
Butte County should develop an "in lieU,01 fee program as part of the
ongoing development of a Na:,ural Resotirees and Recreation Element for
the county General Plan.
1
r
r
r
r
r3.4wig
r
1, ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives to the proposed project are cohoidered in the following
analysis: the No Project g discussion compares thetive and the ded impactsect of these two
Alternative. The following disc _ 3 of this z
alternatives with the proposed project imps.
cts discussed in Section
report;
4.1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project Alternative involves maintaining the project site's existing
General Plan Land Use and Zoning
designations. Only a limited amount of
future development (less than 20 ive. Ne8�iat on ofould be the Chico Area
in the pr
oject
area as a result of this al ernative.
Greenline would occur.
Under ,this alternative most of the environmental impacts of the proposed
would be substantially reduced, or 'would be delayed,.
project would not occur+ not be a 1,ong term alternative because the
The No Project Alternative may
roject area is defined as a "study area" in relation to the Chico Area
P anon indicates that this area 1s more likely to be
Greenline This design other growth
involved in an amendment to the Greenling than other areas. along State
inducing impacts, such as the Eaton Road Extension, development0maencourage ;a future
in rn. Chic
Route 32 and increasing urban
density
dw eeGeneralo'PlanyLand Use
amendment to the Chico Area discussion summarizes impacts of`
designations for this area. The following
the No Project Alternative by issue.
LAND USE PLANNING APPLICABLE pL`ANS AND POLICIES. The No Project Alternative
-would maintain existing 'urbanlagricultural land use conflicts in the prorCels,
m
area, but mould not increase these conflicts or subject naw. or larger;
arna to the Qwest, to adversewould be 'ehifteddteiProperties
beyond the project
and for resideatial land for developm
demand
h is consistent with city and
ourrentlyannihin eChico Area Greenli.nd inducing
f1d a General Plan
The .growth indneing impact of th
county planning policiesbe avoided
Amendment and relocation of the Chico Area Greenling wo
Beneficial housing supply,impacts vould be dost.
about 20 residential
iAFFzc. Additional traffic would be generated by only gout Levels of
ti e M allowed under the proposed pmol'
,,$�atcin�erseetions in northern Chico would bestssimilar to those
i ' f _'Lp
identified ih the CATS for the year 2000.
OI.OGY/HYDRC)LOG�i. Potential soil and seismic impacts would be minim ted with
GE Stormwater runoff and infiltration and urban
the No Project Alternative.
pollut�+nt levels would. be less than with the proposed project.
Impacts related to additional demand for public
PUBLIC SERVICES/UTII,ITI•
services from new reaidea sawroea wouuld bbe�eduddd.�Existinginitra a source's
exte'n`sion into the prof
the water quality
j
within the project
Chico. ors to
� nor act area mould: remain as oantribut
problem
a:j
IiT
'# EXPANDED PROJECT AREA ALTERNATIVE
r,
k
The Expanded Project Area; Alternative would involve 'a General Plan Amendment4 g,
including all of the parcels within the 100 acre area delineated in Figure
1.1'-3• This alternative also Wouldprovide for one acre minimums parcel adzes,'
approximately 330 new residences in the area (60 more residences than
r allowing app
under the proposed project). Mader this alternative, the'significance of most.
of the environmental impacts identified for the proposed project would be
increased as a result of the 60 additional residences allowed by this
alternative (beyond the 270 new residences allowed by the proposed project.
The following diacussion cl"a ifies the differences between impacts of `he
' nthe
proposes project and this alt
L, USE PLANNING APPLICLBLE PLANS AND_POLICIES• The Expanded Project Area
Alternative Would allow for improved internal land use compatibility between
urban and agricultural uses by allowing the removal of agricultural as the
�
' land use designations
predominant use of the project area.
The pattern o.
would be considered more logical and stable than under the proposed project.
However., the expanded development potential would further disrupt the city's'
and couni�,y's intention to guide development to other areas in Chico and assay'
frons prime agricultural lands. Beneficial housing supply impacts would be
increased with the potential .for additional units,
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION. Tli6 increased developm
ent potential Of the Expanded
Project Area Alternative would increase the significance of thLe incremental
impact of trips generated by the proposed project. Measures to mitigate
impacts and related funding for realigning'and
fined in the CATS would become more important
unco�entional intersections
for constructing improvement de small difference between the two
and urgent. However, due to the relatively significant on an incrementalalternatives, this alternative would not be
leve, but would add to the cumulative traffic impacts identified in the CATS
for the year 2000. _ -
GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY. Soils and seismic impacts would not be substantially
different e proposed project, £his t ternOhsaty (one add
unitlaere)�ith highredn b heop Units at of ct, sal ad contribute bate moredUrban
As oompa
more impervious surfaces (increasing runoff), and Wo
pollutants to local waters.
rPUBLIC 'SERVICES AND UT±LtTIES• The add tio�iuld cres�ieet�e probabiliAl units itq thatlowed uinder
oonnectioneto theeCitct q of Chicosexerea AlternatIve �trunk -
the line would be required to-
connection a
determined Wit
the sewerage study the neped •
minimize nitrate oontamination in the project area However,is completed.
trunk
e pr toy mpact oftbe the additional residenticl unitsallowed tinder the
ad be an increased "demand for public
Expanded Project Brea Alternative wo
gerviots and util tiehy including sewage `hxeatmeat, water, police, fire,
schools, storm drainage facilitiesy Nbad maintenance, libraries, parks and
r Storm drainage and sewage treatment
recreation facilities and hospitals4 ore c
r systr,,ag would be expected to a sbOmewha could �emdistributedato a greater nuumberhof
alternative. t''3ver; the oo
dwelling units. The feasibility of a sewer 'tr'unk eztensioti Could increase
with a'higher overall density of development in pThe incremental
project and the demand under
differences between the demand under the proposed i3oweVer, for many
this alternative Would not be considered significant.
publie services, such.'As fire protection, sheriff protection, schools,
llbrar3es nod parks, ,why additional demand would be considered cumulatively
signi4'icant
4-2
(,. GROWTH _INDUCING IMPA C_TS
According to the California Environmental Quality Act, a project is considered
to be growth inducing if the project could directly or indirectly foster
economic growth or population growth. Extensions of urban services or
transportation facilities into previously unserved or underserved areas',
e and other projects which remove obstacles to growth or generate substantial s
economic or employment activity would be considered growth inducing.
The proposed project would indirectly foster economic growth and population
growth in the Chico area in several ways: (1) by increasing density tallow
o
up to 270 new residences to be developed in the project area; (2) by
the Chico Area Greenline to remove a constrain; to land development in prime
agricultural areas, (3) by reducing the city's and .county's commitment to
encotwaging development in other areas of the city; (4) by encouraging the
City of Chico to extend urban services into a previously unserved area (via'
the Nitrate Action Plan and sewer service requirements Which could initiate
annexation); and (5) by providing short term construction employment and
business activity with installation of infrastructure and construction of new
.residences.
Increased development density would be growth inducing since it would allow
additional people to live in the Chico Urban .Area The people would
incrementally increase the demand for consumer goods and services Which Mould
encourage secondary growth, such as new businesses. Modification of the
Green line could be an indicator that the existing constraints on development
created by the Greenline and efforts to direct development in other areas are
not firm city/county commitments, which would encourageowners of :similarly
situated property ,to generate pressure on decision makers to amend the.
Greenline.
Extena of urban services through infrasteucture:improvements and extensions
of ur4Y service boundaries (annexation] is clearly growth inducing since
similar-;*;;Ltuated properties would become more viable for urban Uses.
Impacte, t"�x ''.,he construction industry would be temporary end likely limited to
bdsiho° zt rind workers already established in the Chico area. The growth
indut i, sects of the project would be considered significantly adverse.
i
O
6..1
PE
7. CUMULATIVE IWACTS
Cumulative impacts are impacts which are individually yr incrementally minor,
but which, when combined with impacts associated with :
past and present
Approved projects and other reasonable anticipated future projects. accumulate
to more substantial proportions. The California Environmental Quality Act_
(CEQA) states that cumulative impacts shallbediscussed when they are
significant and that the discussions shall describe the severity of the
impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the
discussion does not need to provide as great detail as is provided for the
project alone. The discussion is to be guided by the standards of
practicality and reasonableness.
The Draft EIR discusses cumulative :impacts by utilizing the ;Chico Area
Transportation Study (`CATS) which is an adopted planning documentpertaining,
to future development of the Chico Urban Area and by analysis of the project
as a percent of total growth both in the project vicinity and general area.
The basis from which the (CATS) projections are made are two scenarios which
conkemplate development by the year 2000 and development by buildout of the
Chico General ?fah Land Use Map., The CATS study is incorporated by reference
in section 3.2 of this report. The analysis of cumulative impacts as a
percent of total growth is presented as follows.
The proposed General Plan Amendment And subsequent development ofresidential
ses in the project area could result in the development of up to 270
additional dwellingis and a
approximately 648 persons living in the project
.area 2.4 persons per, dwelling unit). The addition of 648 persons to the
project area (Traffic Zane 30 in the CATS.) would exceed the population
projected in the CATS for this area by approximately 31 percent for the year
2000 and would represent a six fold increase -in the number of people added in
this zone by the year 2000 X048 vs. 106). The total project related
Population growthwould represent approximately 0.86 percent of the lowest
projected total. population growth anticipated with buildout of the Chico
General Plan Land Use Map (139,231 - 64,006 = 75.231). The project's share of
cumulative traffics air quality, noise, and public services demand impacts
proportional to its increase would be op ease in population grcf,+th.y projeot'a
;The
incremental population growth is expected to occur graduall in the future ,
MitiBa icant cumulative', impacts are presented in
i3. measures
Section states that mitigation measures for cumulative impacts; may
involve y
only adoption of ardinonces or re gulatians rather than. the impositions
of conditions an a project by project basis.'
The following cinnul.ative impact9 are discussed in Section 3 of the nraft 1R
Loss of prime agricultural land to urban development and additional
,adverse land use compatibility impacts.
Changes in planned land uses and the related weakening of the city -f6
land use plv-nning policy �ihich encourages development in other areas of
Chia► (grll th �>bducement).
- Additional trafftO aZd related impacts such as noise and air quality
degradation in the Forth Cb.ieo area.
7�t
- increases in urban pollutant level, and nitrratt,s in soils and water in
the north Chico area.
- Increases in the dema.rd for public services, including sewage treatment,
r
Water, police, fire, schools, road maintenance, ,parks, recreation
facilities, libraries and hospitals.
r
r
1
r
r
r
1
r
�r
r
7-�
BETi�EEN LOCAL SHORT TERM' USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND
THE. MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
1 The relationship between local, short term uses of man's environment I and the
term ten one of
maintenance and enhancementof
lconor�ic, andongdenvironr<�ntaluctivitY is fimpacts over time•
tradeoffs or balancing soci ,
In some cases, a relatively short term benefit may have adverse cumulative
effects, with the possibilityture economy
tedasocialand reenvironmen al costs nerations and the u(see Section
may be burdened with unw
�, Cumulative impacts). The opposite situation, in which long term benefits
occur at the expanse of shioortoterm diimpacta nsfcr this pro ject, Also is i• Decisions
arethe
that influence the balancing
responsibility of Butte jaunty as part of its Vo].icy making and reg
ulator°y
function,.
The proposed project's short term adverse impacts would result from
construction allowable AT
the proposed' General Plan Amendmen�.
However,
long term adverse impacts would include (1) lose of prime agriculture lands
which would involve a reclueButtoCauntytotal
cou7doverall
haveaanbadverseility oimpaet on
agricultural production in e
agricultural support services in the region, and (c) inefficient use of public
resources to serve low density development on the west side of the Chico 'Urban
Area at the expense of tht• attractiveness and/or marketability of development
of the east side, as is encouraged by Bute County and the City of Chico ,(see
nolicies)
Section 3.1,
Land Use, Planning, Applicable Plans and .
i
1
8-i
s
Earth Metrics Incorporated, DraftEnvironmental Impact Report for the-1Ior_th
Valley Plaza Area Annexation, Prezone #91 and,. Development Agreement (1985).
Edell, SLnart, Associate Civil Engineer, Butte ;County Public Works Department,.
telephone communication (1985).
Grant, Gen Fa, District Manager, California Water Services Cbmpany, telephone
communication (1986).
Grey, Captftin,`Butte County Sheriff's Department, telephone communication
(19 -6).
Hawkins, John, Division Chief, Butte County Fire Department, telephone
comun cation (1986).
-� Hughes; Jerry, Chico Area.-Recreation;_and Bark District, telephone
communication (1986)
rt 1 rt
JESIC &Associates, "Chico,Urban Trans�iortation Study (1982)•
Landof Tom, Planning Director, Chico Planning Department, personal and
telephone communication (1984 and 1985).
Mathews, Ben,, Director of Elementary" Education, Chico Unified School District,
telephone communication (1986).
2cElroy,Ron, ,EnBineer$ Butte County; telephone communication (1986)..
t Nunez, Pbb, Director of Public Works, City of Chico Public Works, telephone
communications (1986)
Palmeri, Edwin, Associate'Planner, City of Chico, telephone and personal
enmmunicaton (1986),
Pierce, Elwin,. Asseistant.Design Engineer,,Butte County, Public Work, 'telephone
communication (1986).
Reid, Tom, Supervising Sanitorian, Butte County Department of Environmental
Health, telephone abmmunication (1986)
Rolls, Anderson and Rolls, Butte Countv North Chico Area Storm Drainage Study
(1985).
Rolls, Anderson and, Rolls, County of Butte Feasibility Study for Sahitary
Sewer_,Servine to the North Chico -Area (1984)
Sellera, Cliff, Planning nireetor, City of Chico, telephone communication
ShattUdks, Dale, Administrative Assi
Adminis"tetabt for Community Services, City of
Chico, telephone communication
rTerry, Josephine, Director, Butte 'County Library, telephone communication
(1988')
r ,1.2
Tiller, Dick, BatalV.in Chief,
Butte County Fire Department, telephone
communication (1966),
Tuttle, LaUraj Associate Planner,
Butte County Planning Department, personal,
telephone and written communication
(1985 and 1986).
U.S., Department of Agriculturej
Map `
Soil Conservation Service Report and Soil~
(1976)
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Soil Survey (1929).
U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development, Federal Insurance
Administration, Flood Hazard
Boundary, Map, Butte County, California (197f`)•
"
11-3
1
1
J 2. PREP MRS OF THIS REPORT,
This report was preparedby the County of Butte and Earth Metrics
Incorporated, Burlingame,, California. Earth 'Metrics has no financial interest
1
in the approval or disapproval of the proposedes
project. The Earth Metrics
staff who participated in this work are:
}
1
Russell Leavitt, B.A., Project Director
Brian Kennedy, B.A., Project Manager
1
Lynn Alexander, B.A.
1
Sepehr Haddad, M.S.
_Diane Schucki Production Manager
1
Caesar Jhanapin: Graphics
1
r
1
--
t
-_
13.
APPENDICES
13.1
initial Study
=13.2
Letters in Response to Notice of Preparation
13.3
List of Parcels Involved in'tbe General Plan Amendment
S13.4
Applicable Zoning Regulations (A-5, SR -1)
13.5
Chico Area Greenline Policy
13.6
Minor Revisions to Figure 3.1-1,'General Plan Land Use Map
13.7
Population Data in Butte Count,
13,8
Demograpbie Data. in Butte County
13-1
APP IX' 13-, - _INI LAL bituux
APPI;Np1 X 1
COUNTY OF BU'CTT:
EN'VI RONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(to a complete v Lea Agency) 84-02.27-03
Log n 84-01-13.02
AP 4 Various
1 rr
Name of proponent Apobelai�rIL-an.s��$Qaxt�� Supervisors
2. Address of proponent and representative (1f applicable) -
I`Ioobe r B ell Boad o Supervisors ...__
�-,7� el�mn/.2947 lord Ave. 25 Co Center Dxive
1. 1'ra,lt`ct testi r"r;ption _Ganerl:.11aII
Amendment,
�,
DSAI }1f,
11. D1ANIIATORI FJ`�U1hCS 01: SIC,hi'l: NOIFICANU --- ----
a: toe,4 t h�' roiect hs�e'the potential,' to degrade the
l} reduce
qualit}' of the c�nvronmcnt, substantial
the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
-or
fish or wildlife population to dropbelow Self
le'v`els.' 'threaten to eliminate limiate a plant
sustaining
animal l', reduce the number or restrict the
animal or
range of a rire or .endangered plant or
eliininate.iur7or�r�rh �Rmples of the major periods
1
of California h.istc)TY or PTehistory?
h UoCs the project hal"e tiie Pt' <,nt 61 o achieve
bariefits to the detT llis,.nt - f 1011 tCTm,,
short -term
p• one1`he
goals? (A short-term imWtw
envie,onmental
4nvironment i one which orcui-s in a reiati`,' t
brief` period of time while long-term impacts will +r
All
endure into the future.)
Dods the project have impacts which are "individw '
but cumulatively considerable? (A
ally limited,
project, may impact on two or 'more separate resnur�es
is
where the impact on each resource .relative))'
but where the effect of the total of those V
small, _ .
impacts on the environment is siFn'ficant.) �j►
tI, [foes the project have environmental effects which
adverse effects on human
will cause substantial
heing5, either direct:lY or inclireetll+° .•
+)
om'leted b} the Lead Agency)
1'iI ji1i1Rl+I1NAi'iC1ty (To be c' Pl
, dant
itri the basil, of this initial e�3lua
--111.D riDT half a significant effect
iJkl; find the proposed project CC1 w
N1.6ATIlE DECLARATION wijl be,prepar.ed.
on the eniironmcnt, and a
ro ect could have a signifies
1%WE find that although' thepropo"sed p' j
rant effect ds thSeebetausmen, tUTIGATION N1901JRES describddnon
effect
sheet have been added to the project. A tJLrATTVI.
1)r- kill be prepared,
on
propos
iMPACTgRF1'ORTn i s required,, J flit: find the p l p.. "� required,,
'
RN IRfINAtia TAL
t:he en'Vlronment and an .
MINTY OP AUTTti, PLAN N1Nfi 111'ARTrtt:h'i
1� 1 rfay 14., 19$4...
Labra tittle
Assistant planner
ilti twr�1 tiv : 13.1-L
4;
IV .
ENVIR0N1►tE M1 IMP-ACTS
----�--`�''t-'�� es" and "maybe" answers are required
o_ .., . Y
�"Xp anations
MAYBE
beet (s)) YES YEE NC_..,
on ,attached.
1, EARTH. will the proposal result in significant:.
—a-.--Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures? ---
displacements, comp action or
b. Disruptionst,
of he soil'?
overco_ g
in topography cr ground surface
c Change
relief features^-
coveringor modification of any
d. Destruction,
psical features?
unique geologic or physical
of soils,
e. Inc rj wind or water erosion _
.:cease �
off-site?
either on or r beach
f'. Changes in deposition or erosion of
in deposition
sands; ;or changes siltation,
which maymodify tho channel of
r
r erosion
a ror the bed of the ocean or
Or'iver or stream
any bay, inlet or lake ?
agriculturally nroduc.ive soils
Lass of prime
&• outside designated urban areas? 7X-
to geologic
-`
osure of people or property
h EXpj[
as earthquakes, landslides, mud-
hazards such
slides; g round failure or similar hazards?
the proposal result in
2. ubstartialt
AIR, Will ,
or eterioration of ambient
a, Air emissions
. '
.
air Quality. •ectionable odars, smoke
of obi
b; The creation
r
or fumes?
c , Alteration of air movement, moisture o
or any change in climate,, r
* � -
tempi nature ,
-
locally oY :regzonall}�q
proposal result in substantia].:
3, WATER.Will the propor the course or
a:, Changes in currents,
d' rection of water movement.s in either
marine or fresh Waters, drainage patterns,
in absorption rates,
b, Changes
or the rate and amount of surface runorove-_
c, steed for off-si'teVeuetationrremovvali channel=
' ,.
_
ment'onlorlculvert installation?
i'zat',
the course or flow of flood
d. Alterations to
-
he amount of `surfaWaters.ce grater in any.
e. Change�in f.
Water body? ,r. or in any
f; Discharge into surface Waters, including
quality,
alteration of surface water
limitod to temperature, d.ssalved
but not
` ozygen or turbidity? -
flow
direction or rate of fl
. Alteratianwa�ethe
g ,�
. rs .
Of ground �.atets ,
ty of gr
h, Change in thequant,ound
. ,
either through direct additions of vith-
through interception of an
�[
drawals; or
aquifer by y cuts or excavations? therwise
the amount of Water o
�{-�►
1, Reduction .in
for public water supplies?
water
wat°
available
' eo le or propertV to
E.!posure of p p
hazards such as flooding'.
y '
.�
related
1.3.1r-2
'
F IMI the proposal resu'y t in .vEs�ant�ial
�. E ,
PLANT L`
w'
a, C ung�� in the diversity of species, or n1x7�ber
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs , grass, crops, .and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of rlar.ts into an
c, ? replenish-
p.
arca, or 1n a barrier ..a the normal e tents -
species. +„
ment oa existin;
ment
d Reduction in acreage of arty agrlc,al to i a1 crop?
!'�i-
^
�r_y
S.
AINIML LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial:
a. Change in the diversity of spcc les, or numbers
(birds, land animals
of any species of animals
Including reptiles, fish and shell fish,
berithic organisms or insects)?
b: geduction in the numbers of any unique,'rare
Mc.
or endangered species of aniiizals? a�
Introduction of new species of animals into
7
g
an area, of result in a barrier to the mi ration
�
or movement of animals.
a. Deterioration to existing, fish or, 1ai1s111fe
---
habitats
-,
G
NOISE. Will the proposal result in substantial:
`Increases levels?
a. in existing noise
b. Fxposure of people to severe noise levels?z
7.
LINT AND GLARE. Will the proposal produce
significant light and glare?
L?1NU 0L. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteraltion of the present or planned
--
land use of an area?
,• propos-al
NATURAL RESOURCES! Will the r esult in
r!
•
substantial.
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural
r.
_
re5oUTCeS?
!�
f an non-renewableoat
b. De lotion o y ural
P
resources? ----
10.
RISk OF' UPSET. 1tigll the proposal involve:
a A r`1s : o explosion or the release of hazard-
ous substances (i'ndluding, but not limited to,
in the
'
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)
�1
event of an accident or upset condition's?
i
b. 'Possible interference With an emergency
response plan or etergenc1' evacuation plan?
llz
POPIMA'T"IM"i Toil. the Proposal alter the locatic-'n;
of the human
c�is•tribution� �ien�i Ey', or growth r°'I!tc
..�
poplAlat:ion?,
1�.
roposal a
1TOl5Ty'G. 1;i11 the pffect eN*i'stin housing,
housi.ng?
be cre ite (iem�..nj Cor additional
..
-
_ 13ti1-3
YES "MAYBE N0
13.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATT;ON. Will the propcsal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial adiitional vehicle
r
movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
_
c. Substantial impact on existing transportation
*,ens?
sys
—
d. Significant alterations to present patterns
}
of circulation or movement of people and/or
-
goods?'
e. Alterations torhazardsrail
motoriVetraffic?`
f. Increase in traffichacles,
bicyclists or pedestrians?
14.
putLI'C SERVICES. will the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered
services:
governmental
a. Fire protection?
--
b. Police protection
_
c., Schools?.
d.. parks or other recreational facilities?
public s ' - dins
e. Maintenance: of- facilities,
roads . tie. ; zn�.lu
f., Other�governmen'ral services.
15.
ENERCY. Will the proposal result in:
a. 'Tse of substantial amounts of fuel.or energy.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
_.:.
sources of.`energy, or require the development,
of new sources of energy's
1'b.
UTILITIES. 14,11 the propsal result ina need for
`
new systems, or substantial alterations to the
followings
a, Power or natural gas's
.—
munication s systems!
b. Comc.
Watery
d. Sereror septic tank?
e. Storm 'water drainage?
f. Solid waste aind disposal.?
-fes
11,
HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal` result ins
hazard
a, rear on of any health or potential
health)?,
health hazard (excluding'' mental
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18.
,14ETIC8. Will the proposal result iti the
AE5or
o struct-on of any scenic vista or view open to
proposal .,. ;� the
the public, or 'Will the ro osal result in
..
y pen
creat.i.on of an aes�theticall offensive site o
to public, view?
13.1-4
-cRtAn I the
19. R r- proposal resul� in -.—a impact
tI
tI
upon the quality or quantity of exist i .r.g recreatiOnal
.opportunities?
20. CULTURAL RESOURCES.
ai Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the ties t,.Oixtion of a prehistoric or
historic. archaeological site?
b. Will the proposal result in advorse physical
or effects ffects to a prehistoric or
historic building,, structure or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause
I
a,physical change which would affectunique
ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the impact
potential
area?_
DISCUSSIOIN OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
AP Various,
January 1984 the Board of Supervis'ors initiated a G:ncral Plan
Amendment fro -i. Orchard and Field. Crops to "urban" for a 400
acre or more area known as Bell -Muir..
Bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the West;
East AVe. and lionshav to the south, Alamo Ave. to the
east,
and Bell, and Muir Avenues to the north, This area has long
been pl,anted in orchards.
In
mid-l.*Obruary 1984, residents of the BL,11,-Muir area inlde-
P C, -ndeiftly 'applied Por a General Plan Amendment from Orchard
and, Field Crops to,Agrir-ultu.tal-Re,,�identitil, I acre minimums.
The location of this General, Plan Amendment is essentially
tliie same but t4c boundaries are,'gulaxIrre encompassing M8slhg j e I more
or IcS_s__ 270- acres.
The project is located on Class I and 11 soils: Vina.Loam,
If in a F ino Sandy Loam, and Farwell Loam These soils are cap-
-able of supporting a wide variety of agricultural Crops,
Many of the parcdls are planted itn orchards.
Forty acres is the preferred inin.i.mum parcel site, however,
as small as 10 acres can be viab,'Ty fanned ai)d, -rovide a ste-
ondary income.*
As,5uii.3,,h,g i acre mizillmum parcels from mare or less 28." to
more or 4ets 312 3 lots could be ti,reat'edj and more, or less
2161-522 new homogites developed. . -=
_7JW__
TOlophohd i jFt Fr w if 5/7 84
9 ff I el�
1 Farm Advisor- Walnuts 3j400 lb/ac x 40 ac_ x:SAO/lb
$54j400 OjOOO accosts x 40 - $400000);
net $14, 400 moderate inconle(dounty AVerage
ind6hid)e
2 Pl'iVate applftation,
S Board application;
4 Build out is 2 units per parcel:
19 parcel .8itds dld'crda8e, ec6noMics of sealt work, to propor�
tionally increase farming costs.
t
-:
zf i c atdonsare
are granted or boundary, line. modifications d
1f ;variances
approved, these figures could be 500 higher.
More ,specifically-
261-522 homesites equals:
626-1,252 persons
115-229 school children 4
6,260-12,SN daily vehicle trips _
park more or less 5 acres)
M
1 nes, community
.6-1.2 new police officers
(see Chico Area Land Use Plan)
runoff 432 cfs
The very site and intensity offllheopi a'suppaimcticetotthe Chico
Environmental Impact Report (E)
EIR be prepared,.
Arca Land Use Plan
In 1982 an EIRR was prepared on the Chico Area Land Use Plan,
-which included these proper'ties +
soils and other back ground information which
p
Regional setting, are sufficientlycosered, and.
1 to this protect
would'also apply
should be reorenced.
The EIR does not discuss circulation within the "Bel14luir" area
of A-5 or A-10 until a specific
and recommends a holding zone
is prepared to discuss ci=rculation and drainage. (Pale
plan
-Muir outside of,, the Shasta Union Drainage Assessment Dis-
Bell-Muir,lacking drainage facilities :and ex-
Be 1.1 ,
'trice, has been identified as
localized flooding. (Page 85) _
Develo meet, of }sell hluix would be confloo to the Land Use Element
p in prone Or areas otherwise
.
policy of restricting development
lacking drainage improvements.
g
. .
further recommended.that a districtst( ) be form ed to fund
It was
all public improvements.
.s located outside of the high nitrate area,
While this project i
eground�waterudeteriora-
the Division.of Environmental ea ncreas
undoubtedly
on septic tanks will
tion• (Memo of March 20; 1984;)
Y
Unified School District has noticod Butte., Count that
The Chico projects within the district
development
royal of
ued apri, Constitutes an unmitigated sgnif.=
absent a funding' mechanisms
cant impact.
referencing the Chico Area Land 'Use U
be items;
This ti- may prepared
background information, and focus on checklist
fo`r .. roun d
l ; overcowering of s"'h eros�.on surface and R
increased sedimentataon,
drainage,
water qual-ity
land `Use issues sUC�1 a5:Ian
naededafotoGeneral Pdevelapmonteinmthe
lus'tz.ficat, ion and
imp on the' already approved
` public
in
east including tie exteW eve investment
improvements.
e neration and thc'resultant circulation pro
1:3, Traffic S.
dt:mand for
blurts .
lfi,l'6: hG onomic '4:,na socia]. impacts of :ncre:ased
public services"
district to font'. and.
,. -• a
lsnin
and in frastructure.
Artalizc the feasibility i s and
maintain all Public services
IIc: Groiath inducement
through
e readily
q� 5a, and 6 could b tlil}r addressed
cm tion
rit`t i sa measures
outer.
d 5d, and 7 can not be entirely mitigated
Vote that 4 ect.
pro)
than. through an alternative
to be e�l�austitie> but rather
. this s nificant Prcjeet _
;�:onc of these comments on
discuss,
to initiate
1
APPFNDIX JJ i Z Lettervi ..
PLAWING OFFICE 4uN,�Ca; +9
cam
F t a 2 4 1984
CITYxCiI1CO PO Sol OMYN. "$oris February 23, 1984
1%r, rs?) Crt::c CA 95;x
xi'16189r- f"-'
Butte County Plasnning Department
25 County Center Dive
Oroville, CA. 95905
RE: Midway orchard, Heidnger/Sweet, Nectar, and Bell -Muir General Plan
Amendments
Cit of Chico finds that the proposed projects noted above are in direct
The Y -
rowth Policies established after
conflict wzth the 1984 Compromise Plan and urban gP_
extensive discussions between the City and County.
In our opinion, each of the above referenced projects may generate significant
impacts. An independent consultant should be retained topreparea Draft
Environmental Impact; Report, address-ing_the following items for each project area:
1, The justification and need for the General Plan amendme=nts
2. The impact on the already approved development in the east
including'tLie extensive investment in public improvements
- as a result of development in agricultural areas west of
the adapted Gremlin
e.
3. -.Impacts on public services,ai.d public improvements including,
but not limited to fully improved streets, storm drainages
r schools, parks,, police and fire protection.
4, Project impacts on shallo
w well domestic Water systems, and
in Particular,'potential increases in nitrate levels within each project area.
M project aribn problems as A result of
5. Traffic generation and c_rculat
full buildout in thearea..
The kept t` en on the above
-City would like to be informed of any action to be tak
projects, and is looting forward to reviewing and commenting on environmental
documents prepared for the proposed projects.
Sincerely,
Edwin R. 'Palmeri
Assistant Planner
ERP': pb
i
De rtment of Transportation
District Caotactxs
Fish and Game - Regional Offices
Don Ctmsttx'Js
,
A. Naylor, Regional ]tanager
Department of Transportation
1
�•�/
Department of Fish and Game
Cypress
0
District
:1 Union Street
Redding, G 96001
Red
E1ureka, CA 95501
916/236-6274 t
707/412-5761
Michelle Gallagher
Department of Transportation
P. Jeasen, Regional, ager
-w
Department.�e of Fisb and Ga
1701 Nimbus Road, Suite.A'
District 2
R=cbo Cordcra, CA 95670
1657 Riverside Drive
Redding: CA 96001
916/2-.6-6A4
916/355-0922
Brian J.. 3aith
Depm-went of Transportation
O
Be Aunter, Reeional Manager
Department of Fish and Game
Yountville Facility, Bldg. `C
0
District 3
,r-----.-
70untville, CA 94599
r03 B Street
707944-1460'
r-svillei CA 9-5001
,916/674-4277
Mara Helandry
Department of Transportation
Department of Fish end Gazle
G. Nokes, Regional Manager0 ,
District 4
1234 East Sbaw Avenue
Rincon Annex
p��3co,
209/2.22-3761
San Francisco,Cb 94119
415/557-1887
Jerry tauaer
Fred A. lorthley Jr;, Reg. 1<- 8er
Department of Fish and Gama
0
Depiitment of Transportation
District 5
0
245 Rest Broadway
G 90602
to era Street
Lodg Bexrh,
San Luis Obispo:, G 93:401.
213/590-5113
805/5-i4-3114,
kers tmenteof Transportation
Rolf E. Yalu
tizrint Resources Region
/^�
`
District 6_
( )
'`.•"/
245 Reit Broadway
Long'Sescb, CA 90802 -,
�.,.
P.O. r 12618
213/590155
Fresno, CA 93718
.
209/483-4088
tate later Ae�urcea Control Boar
Sd
Rayne Ballentine
O'Departmentoftion
Transp0ra
District 7
Joab Jurancich
inter Reurces Control Board
120 Spring Street
/"'�
State :�o
Los Angeles+ CA 90012'
( )
Division of,gater Qualisq
213/620-5335
`v 1
P.O. Bos 300,_
Sacramento, G 95301
916/372-3413
0San
Robert mote
District B rtatlo
D��r°� � n
Jerry Jahns
Street
Bernardino, G 92:203
0
State Rater Resourci.-s t.',oatrol Board
Delta bait 8
2125 19th St:, Sacra ntb, C!1 9581
714/383--4523
P.O. Box 100; Sacramento+ CA 959tH
e
0
Tcm Ddyak
of Transportation
Departm--ht
District 9
0
Atass
St to water Resources Control Boa tl
Division of tater tti'ghts
500 5out�llain 'Street
G .94514:
Bishop, .
901 P Street :
Sacramento; "CA OBW
714/,873-8411
916%324-5718
,fain Ga$13anop,sg
Department of TranO'pgrtatioq
nny�l }Pa'ter ftu> iity Castrol 80ird
District to +
Region 0 6 City
. eox 2 8
r
Stb&tbni G 95201
-Jim Cheshire
0 Department-of ti-Ahspartation
District'
79"3-`3`ireet
San Die& ,,CA 921$8
714/237=6755'
13.24
.fie ..•...•.' .
t`n` .
Inier-De p �, _ artmenp �t�;Memorandum
To; Supervisor Hilda, %bee'lerAUG 3 111984
FRO" supervisor Jane Dolan 'c, C)"jj. Cafi6ai4
she;ec- Proposal osa T' for Bell -Muir Area
}
a at Et August 24, 1984EISW
L
The Bell -Muir area, 456° acre, A-5 zoning district (bounded N'
by properties fronting on :Muir Ave. -Bell Rd., the S -R zoning just
enshaw Ave., and Hwy. 32), has been the
went of Hay-CuSsick, H
subject of much debate the last four years.
The area has been zoned A-5 since the mid -60's and with a couple
o.. excepta o
ns
Esenhauer°rezone blip on Bell Rd. and Foreman
homesite segregation on Rodeo A. -Ye.) there have been no rxew parcels
However, many smaller
created smaller than 5 -acre in 15 years. she effective date
than 5 -acre parcels were n existence prior to ..
eated legally,
of the zoning (some crsome not). The focus of the
argument has been the 1980 proposed Chico Area General Flan ,
amendment process. During the 2+ years debate on that plan, at
least 3 proposals Were set forth and interminalldesis usedation and
1) place area in agricultural�General Plan (GP)
GP
leave zoning as A-5; 2) place area in Ag, lace
designation and re -zone it to a I -acre minimum zoning; 3) p
the area in a Study Area 'and hire necessary consultants (engineers,
planners) to develop 'a drainage and traffic plan and analyze other
M This proposal included pro
impacts before changing the zoning.
viding a mechanism � y y this
- -
o have -pro
owners in area pa far t
study.
In September 1982, the Board of Supervisors approved;1 in
December 1983, the Board initiated a GP amendment that would put
this area in some �urspeci;fied' urban GP designatioeEAdrequiressome sanc-
if ed zoning. tSi.nce the Board did hot specify,
anal sis of the 'worst case" possible whichecouid berpresumed to he
y "
high density residential.) Ifi 1984, a p P y
representing 270 acres of area was Presented ng ofs1-acreGmilimum.
- nation of Agr cUiltura1_Residential and a zoning
An BIR has been deemed necessary for both the Board -initiated and
property owner petitions. -This is important to point out as some
er hold belief that this area has been studied.
people the erroneous `
s
when it: hasn0t.
The Board has several choices to make:
clarit or
Y, Continue to argue this matter without bxinging y
c 68Ut . This is really what we've been doing sihce September
Allow the Board -initiated amendmetit to proceed iii the usual
This would mean the Department will get to it as they
`1. , V process.
mannc r .
is a slow
tan In lia)Yt of established priorities. This
Supervisor HjIda Wheeler
August 24, 1981
page ,2
•
o the Board -initiated amendment and leave ar`ea'in Agri
3. 'Drop
cultural designation and still zoned A-5,
owner proposal to proceed in the usual
�}j A11ow the property wj.^ite or hire someone to write,
manner. This would mean they
an £-IR and when that is done hearings are scheduled.
for GF and 'zone change, specifY what
5. Mfine the area proposed is proposed, develop a ,plan for handling
GP designation and zoning r parcel charge, and set up
drainage and traffic, determine a P Pa rt owners ream
ocedure allowed in state law to have Fropa their pro rata
the pr for the cost of the plan and p y
burse' the county develop6
share far improvements as they
consultant to, prepare an EIR for the property owner
6. Select a c u re the Board- . . t�.ated application to be
application..re4 nit the zoning
analyzed as an alternative and hisuisewl atstheldepartment
P
etition to pay
these costs.
recommended and we tabled July 17
I recommend VI. Since a drainage plan is already underway, it
has been started, albeit P1eCsmall•lot
could be'said•this proposal vemeni.s, but 't certainly gets
This choice does not answer what to do lentwith the existing
thein share of necessary imp -o . the Bell -,Muir
paying than 1, 2, 3> settling
Mu' -
us further along or 6 in
cantrotiersy.ort
I must say
that 'my first choice would be 3• There "is muare:. I
from property owners in the area to leave things as they
say thy,
L. 'there d be tremendous support far that from al]
would y Fast Ave. cognize. a
ravel N Esplanade and W Howners :(clearly 270 acres
tiroui
what o part of many property.
strong desire on th tunity to divide their propezty
rth) to have the op
wo �r5 fpr these' rea�itms: •
g recommend he areae.
tis fair to honor the request of prop
1 Z d honing n tr ty owners
for us o
consider changing
the �,P an
ers u:z.th the cast of the
�. it is�u:i,.aiaizedbgIA, planningpanalysiss etc., necessary to
....
lega...� real; •
kronor, this requests
established, approp'riatc, fisca`11y
to have development projects'
3 Since it has been a ofnt tte County poor reversal of policy
conservative policy very
Ita11ould s mo� Public resources to subsid-
pay their O`utn Way,
and an inappropriate
ize
development i.n this area
• uhlic interest,. mus see�C answers
;. Yte; as, repstSethetdrainagethe
andptraffic imp
to, at
lea
s acts that will be
13.1-
Supervisor Hilda Wheeler
August 24, 1984
page
w�
created if this area develops into
smaller parpels,
5 Everyone _ vho.has expressed desire to
develop his/propertyli
their fair share of develop
has given verbal Supp ort to vyin�.1
ment costs and improvements
JD/SP
cc, Bettye Kircher`
Nina 11 Lambert
Board members
,
t
i
r
'84-583 r
Discussion on choosing consultant for preparation of an environmental
/ct
f
(2605)
repo 5-57,.,
im�a rt for the Sell -Muir area pursuant. to Resolution 7 4
as amended.
`• _�
Motions REAFFIRM'THE FACT THAT THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DIRECTION THAT
THE $ELL-MUIR AREA BE CONSIDERED FOR CONTINUED STUDY AND
CONSIDERATION SOF A GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AND REZONE AND ALSO
THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY BE CONDUCTED IN-HOUSE'-
BY STAFF.
M S
Vote. 1 2 3 4 5 ._
TO INCLUDE THAT 1,T DIRECT STAFF TO GO AHEAD AIJD
i
$4-.583
Notion Amende-d",
WITH kAfi M_—j.RIC5 TC) DO Tr7k', EIR FOR iiiF.' 'i3i;LL-
(Cont'd
CQ.%TRAC .
KUI3 STUDY R.�.
i
M
2 3; 5
Vote
E SUPERVISORS DOLAN AND WHEELER. TO WOR TOGET1iER 70
TABL--D •
BEST Iti ORDER FOR PEOPLE TO DEVELOP
(,.,E
!'ASE iif:C;C?aDATYONS ON WHAT IS
RF
z ACRE PARCELS.)t
WAD O.Y SU��k���50ttS A1ipiUTFS ��
PARCELS INVOLVED IN THE GENERAL. PLAN AMENDMENT
APPENDIX 1 LIST OF
AC-
ASSESSOR PARCEL N(1MBER
28
042-02--21,22,42
L
20'
- y
®042-02-10
10
042-62-20
4,
042-02-54
2
042-02-17
30•3
042-02-6, 7 101
10
042-024, 10
042-02-6, 7 10
2
042-02-23
2
042.-02i.16 .
4.8
042-02-90
5
042-02-99
1'd .5
042-02-19
4.8
042-02-89
042-05-38
4
042-05i-33'
7
042,-05-14
9
042-05-34
10
042-06-1.5
Mi ner1 On7:Y
042-05-35, 62
5,
042-06-56
2.5
012-05-24
5
042-05-66
`5
042-05-64
4
642-02-27
r�
'
ASSESSOR PARCEL OU SER
AC ES
-- -
042-02-98
5
4.6
042-05-67
2,
042-02-35
4.8
042-o6-77
042-06-r6
4.6
1
042.07-83
5.1
042-05-61
r-
1M4
APPENDIX'13A
' APPLICABLE ZONING' REGULATIONS
_
r
'cultural
Seca 24.72, A-5 (A
(.A) Uses petynitted
(I) One single-family ,dwelling per parcel,
(2) General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock,
poultry production, warehousing and storage,
(3) Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted
uses, including agt icultural processing plants;
(4) Housing facilities (including -mobile bosses) to accoai-'
modate only agricultural employees and their families
'
employed by the owner or operator of the premises;
and provided further that such housing facility shall
be considered accessory to the main building and shall
conform to the provisions pertaining to required yard
and open space for dwellings;
(5) Mobile homes to house one family when such mobile
home is the only housing facility Iocateci on the prem -
seg, provided the following conditions are conf
to: armed
4a) The floor area within the mobile home shall not be
less than five hundred (500) square feet.
t
(b) Tile parcel of land conforms to section 24-72(C)
(Minimum lot area five
of (6) acres), or a smaller
Parcel of land lawfully created.
(B) Uses requiring sue: permits: The following uses are
Permitted subject to securin use
8 a permit in each cane
(1) Golf courses and country" clubs;
(2) Public or
. •including c!urches,
' quasi -public uses clinics, parks and play-
firehouses hospitals, and
grounda, schools, lic ugatin s.
ur _
(3) Segregation of homesites, p suant to the re uire
q
tn6hits of section 24-54
Segregation of agricultural jproceaaing uses, pursuant
to tha :requirements of section 24-55.
CSS Alining, guarry%ng, CbMhereial excavation
and wood praCessing; plants
'Tr.
(C) Minimum lot areae. required: The requirements of
_
section 24.33 of this Code notwithstanding, the minimum
"
lot area in A-5 zones shall not be lest than five (5) acres.
(Ord. No. 1750, § 1, 8-31-76; Ord'. No. 2167i 1, 11-25-80)
Secs. 24.73, 24-74. Reserved.
"
Sec. 2.145. A.-10 (Agricultur 31) Zone.
(a) Uses permitted;
(1) One. single-family ,dwelling per ,parcel, including mobile
homes;
(2) General agricultural farming, horticulture, commercial
livestock, poultry ;production, growing and harvesting
forestry products; warehousing and storage;
(3) Accessory, buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted
uses including agricultural processing plants;
(4) Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate
only employees and their families employed by the
owner or. operator of the _premises; ,and provided
further that such housing facility shall be considered
accessory to the main building and shall conform to the „
prot isions pertaining to required yard and open space
for dwellings-,
(ii) Mining$ - quarrying, conIrnercial excavation and wood
processing plants;
(6) Hunting And fishing se
accommodate recreationalmvehicles and tray 1 trailers,
providing that said recreational vehicle3 and travel
trailers "shall not be used for year round occupancy
(b) Uses rcqu ring use permits; The following uses are
pOrmitted subject to securing a use permit in each case:
(1) Segregation of homesites, pursuant to the require
rrments of section 24-54;
(2) Segregation of agricultural processing uses, pursuant
to the requirements of section 14.55.
13,4-2
(c) Minimum lot area required: Minimum lot area shall
not be less than ten (10) acres.
(d) Front yard aetback: Minimum front 'yard setback
shall be fifty (50) feet from the center line of the , oad except
as
where the • county d
rRo smin
Secondary d, the mumhbuild ng require-
ments shall be ft -five (55) feet from the center line of the
road:
Minimum ide Arid rear
(e) Side and rear yard required:
yard shall not be less than ten (10) feet. (Ord. No. 1'750, § 1,
i,
8-31-76; 'Ord. No. 2167, § 2 11-25.80)
13,4-3
S_ m 24-a. 62. SR -1 (Sgbiurban Residential) Zone.
(A) uses _'
dwelling per pareel, not In
(1) One single-family'
tents, trailers or mobile hoines;
(2) Ace essory buildings pertinent to the permitted uses; �
of �.
(3) Agricultural uses exceptin rAiy ni (4 lot area square
thousand five hundred
forty-three
feet to be devoted to residential use and the following
kept on the
additional requirements for each animal
Premises
(a) For each '.horse or head of cattle or swine over
hundred
one Year of age--Eikht thousandone
twenty-five (8,125) quare feet.
(For b), heap or goat—Tyco thousand (2,000)
quare feet.
'[Uses requiring use permit:] The following uses [are
case*
(B)
permitted] subject to securing a use permit in each
(1) Golf courses and country clubs;
(2) 'Public and quasi -public uses including churches, fire-
and playgrounds, schools and
houses hospitals, parks
public utility buildings",
(3) Sales tract office.
24�3'shall apply excep t�
(C) requiren'tents:] '[Site Section
Ing lot width and lot area:
lot area per dwelling unit shall not be
(1) The minimum f s
less than one acre, ,the provisions oection 243
notwithstanding. "
LL
O The than one
2 lot 'width shall not be less
minimum ,. of section
' hundred `thx�iy (130) feet, .he provisions
�1-76)
24-33 "notwitystand,ng• c®rd. xo: 17b0, 1, 8-
APPENDI
13-:
ICO .AREA GREENL-LNt rvia��
VT CHICO AREA GREMINI.
In addition to the other policies of the Butte County General Plan,
the following policy is applicable to the Chi„c,o Area 'Land Use Plan:
A. PURPOSES*'.
The purposes of this p07,'.cy are:
a) To define the limits of future urban development which
may occur on agricultural lands in the Chaco Area of Butte
County.
b) To provide for the long-term protection of agricultural
resources of the Chico Area of Butte County.
.c) To mitigate the threat to agricultural resources posed
by urban encroachment into and conversion of agricultural lands
in the Chico Area of Butte County.
d) To reduce agrcultural/urban conflicts in the Chico
Area of Butte County.
e) To establish County cooperation with the City of Chico
in land use planning of urba7i and agricultural lands located
in the Chico Area of Butte County.
f) To identify urban development limitsin or near agri-
cultural lands within the County's Chico Area Land Use Plan
by use of a certain bold dashed boundary line.
g) To establish a certain and clear pol,'icy 'text for Butte
County's Chico Area Land Use Element which will enhance and
uphold the aforementioned boundary line and policy text.
h) To establish certain land use designations for the
Chico Area of ButteCounty in conformity with the afore-
mentioned boundary line and policy text:
B. FINDINGS
The Board of supervisors of Butte County hereby find and
determine than t valuable a) Butte County possesses v ble agricultural lands with,
prime and non -prime soils and one of the finest growing climates
in the world.
Butg� e and its -related businesses are critical: to
teACounttsreconomic stability. Inappropriately placed'
urban development in the Chico Area of Butte County threatens
the continued economic Jiabllty and cultivation practices of
rcommercial agriculture in the Chico Area.
C) At present, the Chico Area of Butte County is substantially
surrounded 'byagricultural lands on its northwestern-, western,
and southwestern borders. These agricultural lands play a vital
role in the overall economic vitality of Butte County arra must
be conserved
d) The Chico Area,of Butte County has xperienced the continued
CoTivortion deVelopment f Unlesslthe LandUseElement of thet 'and suburban
agriculturale Butte County
General flan, as it per, to the Chico Area, is amended to
include an urban limit line and a clear policy tdxtj jt is
likoly'that the Chico Area of Butte County will continue to
experience such conversion in the future, with significant
adverse effects on the viability of agricultural uses in the
Chco;;Area.
eIt cx,tical 1y important ortant to the citizens of Butte
) is
Greenline be established in order
County that the Chico Area
to conserve agricultural l ands and to ensure ghat the agri-
n te Chico Area
cultural viability of Agri
edlburarematurelands1andY,inappropriate
is not, -permanently destroy y p
er-s to non-agricultural uses.
the Chico Area of But County will
_conversion f B
f population of }
The City of Chico General plan estimates
continue to grow. 71 100
an,urban area population range of from 56, 500 to ,
will result in urbanization
the year 19.85, which yhe
individuals by y ., There exi
the Chicctiveaa
of up to 1,600 ACT es in
Chico Area of Butte County produ g riculturalssoils
already committed`to future urban and suburban ortingmfuture
less productive soils capable of supporting
soils
as well as
urban and suburban development. Such less roductive
'easterly the urban limit line
edof
generally located
are g ess an urban limit line is
by this ordinance. Un'producti.ve ag,ricultura.l lands
-
established
established to protect uncommitted it s likely, based upon
sed u
in the Chico Area of Butte County, will
that and sareralready
his orical trends, committed
not be directed towards hoseelandsnwhich
'and suburban land use.
urban
to or capable of supporting people le of Butte County 'that
is the desire of the p p
g) It
future urban land development -required to accommodate planned
anne.
o ulation'growth in the Chico Area shallbe}directed
accommodated on the Urban Side of the Chico
land dofthepemcon-
Such direction and accomma�a�ssenof tialrcomponent
be
is hereby declared to
Servation of agricultural uses on the Agricu?ltural Side he
is further the desire of the people
the Chico Area GrepnlYne.' It utte
County that public officials of the" oChico_oin order
of .Butte
cooperate with p ublic officials of the -City lahicol o ulatio.n
of accommodating p p p
that this policy's purposes
',agricultural lands .in the Chico Area
growth and of conserving
�
are carried out;
In the 'Chico Area.of tS of
intended,ro er
?nothing herein is ntenmeentto relieve the ro onenall proper.
5
future urban land developments
assessments, or charges required in order
to such urban and
and reasonable ub is services
to fund the cost of providing p
thereof..
developments or the residents .
C. DE PLIiITIONS, and phrases
he following.words
For purposes. of this policy, t this
respectively ascribed to them by
shall have the meanings
the
section:
a) IT Area" means that geographic area shown on
a part of the Butte County' Lan
Chico Area hand, Use Plan Tiap,
Use Element,
13.52
b) "Official Chico Area Greenline Maps"" means the Chico
Area Land Use Plan and that large scale map certified by the
Planning Director and on file in the PlanningDepartment
office located at*7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California.
c) "Chico Area Greenline" means the boundary line established
by this pOicy and delineated on the Official Chico Area
Greenline
Map which line separates urban/suburban land uses
from
agricultural ,and uses in the Chico Area.
d) "Butte County Land Use Element" shall refer to the Butte
County General Plan Land Use Element, which element was adopted
by the Butte County Board of Supervisors on October 30, 19790
and as amended fromtime to time.
e) "Agri cultural" land use designation and "Agricultural
Uses" mean the "Primary Uses" and the "Secondary Uses" set
forth in the "Or`chard and Field Crops" land use designation
of the Butte County Land Use Element as it existed on March 1
1982, and as amended from time to time.
f) "Agricultural Residential" land use designation means
the "Agri cul tural'Residential" land use designation of the
Butte County Land Use .Element as it existed on March 1, 1982,
and°as amended from time to time.
g) "Urban/Suburban Land Uses" means all lawful uses of land
'(including agricultural and agricultural residential land 'uses).
) "Agricultural shall
refer torland$ wit hindthefChico Area which Gate nlocated hwesterly,
of the Chico Area Greenline.
i) "Urban S_iLde of the Chico Area Greenline" shall reefer
to hands within the Chico Area which are located easterly
of the Chico Area Greenline.
4
D: ESTAELISHMEIKIT'..OF CHICO-AREA GREENITNE
The General Plan of the County of Butte is hereby amended as
follows,
a) There is 'hereby established the Chico Area Greenline
which shall be located as shown on the Official Chico Area
Greenline'Map The Official Chico Area Greenline Map is
inborShoulddal7dispute by this appear
p p Y
g y appear a to the
exact locatiol of the Chico Area Greenline, the following
y - PP t . - g exact Location of
su�hsllnell be a lien in deterr,�inin
the
1) The Greenline shall be identified in the Chico Area Land-'
'Use Plan with a bolddash line as shown on the Chico Area Land
Use Plan Map. The 'Greenline is specific; large scale maps
certified by the Planning Director shall be consulted in the
event of a dispute.
he Greenline �s
2
t
14'here tinidcated as approximately following
street, alley, xa"lroad tight -of -way creek or channel lines;
the renterlin'e of such street, alley, railroad. right-of-way,
creek or channel lines shall be construed to be the location
of the Greenli.ne.'
Y3 5r•3
x
3) Where. the Greenline is indicated as approximately,
following a lot line, such lot line shall be construed to
be the location of the Greenline.
4 With r p y not subdivided, and
where the ChipocArea Greeelinetbsects a lot or parcel., the
by
location of the Greenline, unless the same is indle4ted
dimensions shown upon the Official Chaco Area GrQwa'.ine Map,
shall be determined by the use of the scale appearing on the;,
Official Chico Area Greenline Map.
C) The Chico Area'Greenline shall constitute the boundary
and
between the "Urban Side of the Chico Area Greenline"
"Agricultural Side ofthe Chico Area Greer_,line".
� the
land uses may Agricultural Residential occur on
d cur
Agricultural Side of the Chico Axea Greenline only within
tnose areas designated for Agricultural Residential use on
the Official Chico Area Greenline Map.
e) Except. as provided for in subsection (d), of this
on, the Ag ri.cul,tural side of the Chico
all lArea �Greenlineashalleconsist solely of Agricultural land uses
as provided by the ;Orchard and Field Crop designation.
Area Greenline
f) Land uses on the Urian Side of the Chico
shall be guided by the policies of the Land Use Element and
'as in
the applicable urban land use designation contained
the Land Use Element.
E. ESTABLISHMENT OF CHICO AREA LAND USE_POLICIES
In order to minimize or eliminate the adverse effects which
to urban/suburban land
premature and inappropriate :com#ersion
likely 'to cause to the agricultural lands in the Chico
uses are
Area of Butte County, the following 1olicie8 are heruby adopted
Coun':.y General
Dart of the Land Use Element of the Butte
1�'fans applicable to the Chico Area of B-Otte County;
1) It shall be the policy of Butte County to conserve-
and'pxoter't for Agricultural Use the lands in the Chico'
the Agricultural Side of the
on g
that ore situated
Ar6ai•
Chico Area Greenl,'ne. y
2) It shall be the policy of Butte County to accommodate
future turban/sub;'trban growth that occurs in the Chico Area
'lands situated in the Urban Side of the
to f ?butte f'ouaity on
Chico Area Greenline.
di ZONING. REGULATIONS
a) In order to Carry out the purposes of this po'icy
].orated on the Agricultural Side, of the 071co
properties
Area Greenline shall subsequently he zoned or rezoned in
accordance with this policy as fol lo��►s
are zoned A,.St A- O ori the effective
1) 421 areas tvh ch
date of this pQlicv 'a y deemed canSitstent w~�tt1 this policy,
2) All areas which are shou:n as AgritultUral Residential
p all hereafter be rezoined
the Chico Area Greenline lIa sh
or:
1:3.5-4
M
to a C +
onsistent zone or a conditionally consistent zone as
the same were listed as of March 1, 1932,, in the Agricultural
Residential Land Use Designation of the E►utte County General
Plan. Rezoning shall be, accomplished by the Butte County
Board of Supervisors in the ma.,i,er prescribed by law.
3) After the effective date r this policy, except as ,speci-
fied in phis subsection
(a) no proper�y on the dgricuitural
Side of the Chico Area Greenline shall ne rezoned to an A -t
A-51 or .A,. -1,t? zoning district calssification.
4) All lands located on the Agricultural Side of the,Chico
Area Greenline that are not affected by the above (a) shall
hereafter be zoned ar rezoned
concis tel-tt with ,.his policy.
Such toning or rezonzng shall be dome by the Buttc County Board
of Supervisors through the e.xdre se of i*s discretion and in
the manner prescribed b r late,
b)`All references to A-2, A-5; A-10, A-20, ,k-40, and A-166
- zoning districts as well as rreference5 to the consistent and
conditionally consistent designations applicable to the
Agricultural Residential Land Use Designation, shall be deemed
to mean those same toning district designations and terms as
defined in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code as,the care
read on March 1, 1982 and as amended fron time to tine.
C) Any existing legal lot o E recc�Yd located, o;t the Agri-
cultural Side of the, Chico Area Green`T,inc which, as a result
of the adoption of thispolicy, does not <conform With the °,mien
imum site required by the zoning district desisriation assigned
by this policy shall be a nonconforming lot and shall be
entitled to the benefits and the restrictions of nonconforming
lots as established by law
d)-Nothing-r.ontained in ,this policy ---shall be deemed to
prolluhtelt the, County°aOPdinancenNumbere22��c��r`ural nuisance ordinance
) a the agricultural I
segregation ordinance (Sections 24-54 and 24-55 of Chapter
14 of the Butte Cour►ty Code)_,; as the same may note exist or
hereafter be amended.,
N. ZONING 6�h8ISTBNCY, AND
TIMING
j
The Chico Area Land Use Plan establishes land use
I :
designations which depict dosirabl.e future land use patterns..
rj State law requires consistency between general plan policies
and zoning. In order to encourage an orderly trhnsition of
land use from the existing to 'tho desired pattern, the County,
shall undertake to rezc.nei those lands consisten}1y with the
Chico Area Land Use Plah, 2oning in thesi- 'are�c shall be
upgraded through time with a commensurate showing cif need,
adequate services, drainage; etc: as provided for in the Butte
County Land_;1)s-e Element Zoning it these areas to less tha.h
the maximum provided';for in the plan's designations shall be
considered consistent with the c1Uti C`ounty's Genera' Paan by,
` virtue of policies directed at Cr•derly Development page 30)
O)Id Residential ttevel'opmerlt t'pages 33�-S4) . Priority shall
to those area
•s W ith infra;iyt•uc,ture capacity:
be gxrten
I. ATIFNL'AiENT AND REVIEW
The abova'GxeeAline policy may be amended as foll0lIs:
1) By a majority vote of the Butte County Board such.dmendment involves
visor provided, however, that if any
a chainge in the location of the Chico Area Greenline, that
the Board of Supervisors shall approve such amendment only ,.
after the adoption of written findings of fact, supported
by substantial evidence
cenin tseofublic ting'-recordthehagricultural
a) That the
public
land to urban land substantT�duct�onWeand the public benefits
of continued agricultural p
`tlands reasonably
There are no other urban or suburban
available and suitablo for the proposed development.
2) The Greenline is e.starrl.1 1. surefor tthatethe dland euse nered eds
the General Plan, '20 years. To, in
of the Chico Area 'are being met, the location of the Greenline
shall be reviewed and eval;fated ever five (5) years. For
y
this purpose the Board -of Supervisors commits itself, to
initiate such a review at the time l�.terval specified above.
or amendments shall be nide only upon the findings
Any change_ Nothing in this policy shall
specified ill subsection 1 above+ petitioning the Board
prevent an individual at any time from p a change
general,PI amendment including
of Supervisors for a g p a ; n a�,cord' with the applicable
in the location of the Greenlir_l .
laws and Policies o£ the County of Butte and, State of California
Study Area No, l
tterallY kno'w'n as tl�e L'ell Pti:l r a eaFaolroad Tracksated. in ,
The area ge t},c Sotltlie�`n p"aciF
Alamo avenue
_ Chico (botindccl on the Wast by _
he sotttlt by Last Avencte alld Henslti ►uM f� ' 4,', c ��4 jnishdesia natcd as; a "Stogy Y
t � Bell Road and A
and on the north b) ft- ill acttl' tion to that shown on the
This designation shall
Are<< No . 1" . This nye�c de i gw� ted as a Study Area No .
Chico Area Land Use Plan Map. .� n, t1lis section.
l shall be sith4ect to the sp�ci;al poli.; s ty v+ot'e; may revise
the Board of �Sc�Fe�rvisors, b). :.t��;�lL' majority
a, ``_c, Ct L-enl inc so as to place the
t ;ic location of the Chico i
Study Area ea No 1 oh t�je t)rb,, �a. Side! of thT t�hico Area Grectnl i n � ,
DATE PRINTED 04/29/65
BUTTC
COUNTY
PAGE 4
POPULATION
ESTIMATES
..
FOR JAN 1
FOR „CITIES
AND COUNTIES 114
CALI .FARNiA
CENSUS
(TOTALS MAY NOT EQUAL
SUM 0U 98
E0
- 1981
DEPENDENT 61984
INROUNDING.)1
198;3
1985
BIGGS
---=-----,a._-.__-•---------------
1,413
1 390
_--
1 ,390
1,420 1,430
1,460
CHICO---
-_-.-.---;,__-_ ---
26+
-
27,600
+GRIDLEY. ---
_-
28.150
- - --------,_•-------^-------
28,550 29„650
31,15 D
3,982.
---
--.-
3,980
-- --•
4,080
4,090 4,210
4,280
OROYlLIf
___-»-----------....____8_683
---
9,100
---~-------
---
9,350
--4•------•--•---•---•---------
9,825 9,875
9r 975
PARADISE
MMNM.%NMMAir
22,571
22;700 •:
----- ---------•--•--------
23,200
23,650 24,000•-_--24,200'
- -
1rNIFMYNN##NNA1R##K#NItNYf►NM.MYNkMN%#AIrMM1/NKKYMIfNNN�IM%MA#oil
II NIIMNIIN#NgaN#NA
l
444*4444#
TOTgL iNCORPCRATEO
63,365
64,800
66,200
67,500 69,1001
71;100
MMNN:11aYYN1lY�YaM:M11MN%NYf#NaNNti4N4NY4MY# NAN{lYNakwYNYYYI.NKYNrrNNAYMMIi#A#NMyr#1►YIr#YNYNAlbAM1►M..
'.. ..
UNINCORPORATED
60,486
82,600
134,700
86,500 68,000
89,900
j� aNNM11NYYUKMaAY0/%1rNNIS i:!y%#NNA#NYaNbNMN1rNAk1{I,NNaN%�FNYC
NNMrMNRNM%.MYNNYM%1rNkMbi►##aAh%#KMaNM.NairAKMYNNbi.MNMKafi#MI/IrM1►N11NNYNMNNN
�rMRMN1INYMNNYNI/p1FNNYM�1�#1FYAY:1{NNNIf
�1M NYNN
�
JAAMM#ANN#NMYa#OYNiFYY
TOTAL COUNTY'
143,900
1460800
156,800
154,060 157,200
1610000
e -
r t" 1f
-
POPULATION RESEARCH UNIT
"9MalFY REPORT
DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
OF CALIFORNIA
BUTTE CON�R�L1.,cU COUNTY
'" TY POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR 1-1-85
PAGE 4
AGE85
DATE PRINTED
----*- • . P YI'ULxT I Otf-------- --- ------=---- HOUSING UNITS
----------- POP.
HOZJSE- MOBILE GROUP 5 OR
CITY Tl1tAL ii..L:
CITY HOMES QUARTERS TOTAL SINGLE 2 TO 4 MORE
PER
MOBILE OCCU- X HOUSE -
HOMES PIED ,VACANT HOLD
BIOGS 1459 1459 90 0 562 466 42 15'
--- --'- •__'
r.s-- -.
39 531` 5.52 2.748'
------------------------ -----------------------•----_.r-r------------=-
31163--- 2828
C---- r------_-___-r-_------r-8 61 2875 13344 6710 1992 4606
-------__»...=---•---rr--------•------------------�---•�-----.:-----'-
36 12499 6.33 2.263
GRIDLEY 4283 4191 10 92 1811 1552 1O8 145
-:i:L N+r a. w --i.' �» y. -__ __r --_ -r • .l -------------w-»r-
--------•----=---
— _
6 1649 8:95 2.542
--------------�r.. ��wrrrr:rrrrr-----r-------rrrrrrrwrwr_rr
OROV`1LLE 9963 9652 320 311 4540 2633 497 1176
•
234 4198 7.53 2:299
-_-•r• - -
- - -- - r = -
-----------...----__rw-r.-
w.. ---r
PARADISE 24194
23 687 3287 513 10833 7786 576 507`
1964 10094 6.82 2,346
NMNIF:IFrtilKrtd%NkA K11h%N%NdIFK%%ddq%11#NIF 11#%d%qMMM%%NN%#A###Nff t11►91#11%A1F IF#NN%#ql%q#%d91%%K#f R71NAq�l#iib#Nd�II�N/IN%#*:I�NNf%11�%f%%!F%Nf dM�{Nffrp��►fNk�A --"
TOTAL INCORPORATED 71062 67271 3768 3791 31090 19147 3215 6449,
2279 26971 6.E2 2.322^:
W -
AkNdIldrtNNi►:!!ANMN#1pNN%K11fF%N#11N1{IIKA%1/f%#MN11:1/##U%i1pN%%#fN%N%N%}I#AKNd�#NfIFiF11NNNAIINMN!►�NIFd�q%1d#ii 11i►N%%111!%fftlN�►%fwk•�NNNfflNNN%1�M%%ffAfNNKrNAf
�
UNINCORPORATED 89909 89361 16185 548 36681 24873 2664 281p
8334 35237 8.90 2.'536
'
NdFkKMKKkNMjI%NKN%k MNNKNMkKd#il llf#AN%�NArtNN•Kt�KKIFMAAKNAMANpNKwANKKddd NA%#ANgfi#K11fGN%A#%1lkk KIiNNK#d#illA%#MMA#Ildilf#ANYA
K NKd4MkK Mk.NNdM%Mi►RAKgK%14ANKKKI!{IfF%KK%NMMkMNKYINMMNNKkk
%gg1/dN%N #Ai1N%fM�1►q.'
N%#NffMN�IM%#IF IFq%1►#1MNMNN%#!%N41%iF IFK#%MM#%NJFN1t%f
%1FMMANYdi►N1►N #AMNAf11fM#f
TOTAL COUNTY 160971 156632 19953` 4339, 69771 44026 5679 9259
10613 64208 7.97 2.439'