Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 17 OF 21To: will Randolph, County Administrative officer From: B. Lrcher, Director of Planning' Subject: BELL MOIR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT - (Burrell .Letter) Date: July 27 198:9 The Board on May 5, 1987 adopted "a formal motion o'f, intent to approve a General Plan Amendment that would relocate the "Green Line'► (urban limit boundary) in the Bell Mui.:- area. The motion ` also certified the final environmental impact report (FEIR) for the project but stipulated that the General Plan Amendment would' not be fi.naled until two things occurred; 14 A drainage district be formed for the area at the initiation of the property owners", to provide -the financing for construction and_ maintenance of necessary improvements 2. The area to be included in the traffic study that is currently being done for the northwest Chico Area and the East Avenue Corridor and a means to implement the study (findings) Additionally, the motion of intent provided that "other impacts as id',entifi.ed in the Bell -Muir EIR.be addressed in a policy statement to be a part of the General Plan Amendment."" The "other impacts"" would be those identifies% on pages 2-4 through 2- 17 of the FEIR. (copy attached). Prior to the formal motion of in:tent,, on May 5 1987, the Board, in the farm of`a motion, di°ected that specific issues, that hadbeen discussed in the r IR, be included as policy and requested staff to develop language that would at the -Eime of re t ,require all development, to be connected to California Water. The Boardalso required that x �- infrastructure, i.e:, road widening within the area and traffic lights on East Avenue be addressed regarding the 'share pro -rata for the subject area and that contribution to the fire station fund and installation of hydrants was to also be included .,.n y r the draft policy ,statement. The Board also directed that the relationship of the areas use of septic tanks be considered regarding whether or not the Nitrate Action Plan would have to be amended; They also acknowledged that the urban. limit/sphere of influence would' be amended with the approval of the subject `project, but that these actions would be subsequent to the project approval;; A recommendation; for any, portion of the Boards'' motioh of intent, particularly if the Boards' intent isto establish development standardsr'shoul.d .reference the mitigations recommended in the FEIR, even though the Board may y Wishto modify those mitigations. x Staff. has not developed a "draft policy statement" regarding the remaining mitigations, as requested by the Board at their May 5,, 1987 meeting. There has also been no Nitrate Action Plan 2eview requested regarding whether or not the Phan would have, to be , amended The traffic study, referred to by the Board, was never accomplished, therefore, there is limited', information readily available regarding traffic impacts. A computer program has been developed for the Chico Urban Area by Butte County Association of Governments that is intended to be utilized for traffic studies within the urban area; Unfortunately the Bell Muir area is outside the traffic model urban limits therefore to include the area eimcost um auire additional prograing by the consultant,{ " �o be $700 to $1000 ACTION fia , Recommendation. 1..�' Accept _ubliv cworks recommendation for storm drainage improvements,and 2. Notify property, applicants/owners that they shtuld initiate the formation of a Drainage District for construction and maintenance of required improvements; and 3. Notify the applicants/property owners that either a traffic impact study must be submitted for the subject area or the estimated cost of S1,000.0o for expanding the Chico Urban :Area Traffic Model, to include the subject area, must be deposited with, the county. 4. Refer General Plan Amendment to Environmental Health for report on possible Nitrate Action plan Amendment; and S. Direct planning staff to draft a policy statement, + applicable at time of rezoning, regarding water, roads, traffic lights, fire station fund and hydrants; and 6' Direct ` Planning staff t�hat'n `Ae policy statement will p' anticipate that the "standards will be: those applicable to a Yy f --one (1) acre parcel (not 1.001 acres). and 7. Notify applicents/property owners that applications for specific zoning or subdivisions of property cannot be favorably, consideLed until the Board has made a final. decision on their Gerieral Plan Amendment application., 8. continue this ;item and have ttaff put back on the agenda when responses are ready S�iC : 3mc Enclosure cc: Public Works pttachmentsc Board. Minutes Mitigation Measures (e'87-17 Closed hearing - Joseph Burrell appeal of the Planning ` Commission's denial of Donna Mooberry/Jae Burrell General Plan amendment (item on which a draft environmental impact report has been prepared) from orchard and field crops to agricultural residential on property zoned. A-5 (agricultural - five acre parcels) located on both sides of Muir Avenue south of Bell Road, west of Alamo Avet;ue, Chico ('File 84-45): (Report from Supervisors Dolan and V.ercruse on possible mitigation measures and implementation procedure. (from 2/10/87): Motion: MADE NOTION OF INTENT TO APPROVE THE GENERAL PLAN l AMENDMENT FOR THE AREA WITH THE STIPULATION THAT TWO THIiiuS OCCUR: (1) THAT A DRAINAGE DISTRICT BE FORMED FOR THE AREA AT THE INITIATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE' AND THAT, (2) THE BELL MUIR AREA BE INCLUDED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE ALONG THE EAST AVENUE CORRIDOR AS PART OF THAT STUDY AREA AND THAT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT STUDY INCLUDE'BELL MUIR AS PART (Cont d ONLY STUDYING THE AREA AS PART OF IRS. OVE TO INCL/JAL NOT $7-175. � OF THEIR CONSIDERATION AND TEAT WOULDIE ('Cont � RALL-:BUT ALSO TO INCLUDETHE AREA AS PART OF THE RZSOLUTION FOR 'WHATEVER THE'PRO'RATA SHARE MIGHT BE 'REQUIRED FOR THE:IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. THOSE TWO THINGS SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO THE FINALIZATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMEWDIIENT.I SECONDLY- THERE VERS OTHER CONCERNS RAISED REGARDING BOTH INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND AFTER THOSE TWO THINGS OCCUR AND THE G.P. COULD MOVE FORWARD I MOULD LIF1 TO INCLUDE AS POLICY AND REQUEST THAT STAFF DEVELOP LANGUAGE THAT FOR WHATEVER REZONE MIGHT OCCUR THEREAFTER, CONNECTIONS TO CAL WATER BE REQUIRED WITHIN THAT AREA FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THAT ALSO THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ROAD STRUCTURE INSIDE THE AREAr THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT 'MIGHT BE NEEDED 'FOR ROAD WIDENING AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON' EAST AVENUE - THE PRO RATA SHARE OF THAT BE REQUTAtDo CONTRIBUTION TO 'FIRE FUND AND HYDRANTS AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE NITRATE ACTION PLAN :OR HOW THE AREA USE OF SEPTIC TAW IN THIS AREA WOULD RELATE TO THE NITRATE''' ACTION PLAN WILL ALSO BE DONE AT THAT TIME: WE REALI= tHE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE► THE UR9AN B0UNDUY LINES ETCETERA WOULD BE AMENDED IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT CAME THROUGH THE NITRATE ACTION PLAN WOULD WE TO BE ADDRESSED AT THAT TIME BECAUSE IT WOULD BECOME PART OF THE CHICO URBAN AREA AND THAT THOSE THINGS w0U1,D BE DEALT WITH FOLLOWING THE G.P. "ENDMENT Vote: I At 2 Y -3 Y 4 V 5 AB (Motion carried) (MOTION OF INTENT'NAS MADE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARING. HEARING DATE FOR THE 'PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MOTION OF`INTENT SET FOR MAY 5 AT li:0o A:M.) 1987 $UTTE .. A iii - COUN'1'' S�OAR>3 OF SMINUTES ul'ERXST5OItS �- 86-602Joseph Burrell - appeals the Planning Ummission's denial of Donna Woberry/Joe Burrell General Plan amendment (item on which a draft environmental impact report has been prepared) from orchard and field crops to agricultural residential on property zoned A-5 (agricultural - five acre parcels) Ilocated on both fides of Muir Avenue south of Bell Road, west of Alamo Avenue, ;north and east of the Southern - Pacific k0l1 oad and north of East Avenue; Chico (File 84-45), (KA -RI NG EAR DATE rOR NOVEMBER 4 1985 AT 3:30 P M. VACATED: SET HI M y I, �If�+j'{� �r�y'yy�y*� /�yy �u f'}►,t�}ny Ai.`ie+�iji �i �y��y ry {�j�y . J.a1R� ..... ..... .... .... _..{.., ., ....,, Donn€r Mooberry/Joe Burrell e1 C item on which, a draftr r Environme,,gtal�Impact Reponeral Plahas been, Agricultural Prepared) from Q ^hard and Fielt Crops t Residential on .z'perty zoned A-5 (icultur_ Parcels) located, on both side;-, Of Muir AvenuealsouthaofeBell Road, west of Alamo Avenue, north and east of :'thPacific Railroad and north of e Southern 45) venue, Chico. (File 8 4- Al Beck discussed the mitigation measures. He requested SR -51 road standards rather than SR -S2 for #3 because of the waY the area was developed. He requested that 06 say "from all PaeC616+ instead of ,to all parcels". He felt it was impractical on # year storm. Z to deeizn fora 100 He stated that there were underground systi- s in this area and he suggested a 20 year storm ,design, Staff stated that Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls did a study ;hat in' the Bell Muir area three years ago. included designed to 20 underground systema are usually g. years, this is what Chico is Using now. Staff stated that it is a � grounds r above- consideration fr they ;want to h underground or abote- ave an i stem You have an above grour: sY you could increase the. carrying capacity of the ditches. Chairman VercrusE stated that the _Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls stu not far -the _ purposes of infrastrltcture, bu.t was for thepurposesdy waa' ou tfall from. rural areas southwe:at and out' to the river. of St Staff stated that Rolls, Anderson, and Polls ass be a little ;bit of development, but the sumed that the a would' , more development. There is a Pipe sim,0A will accommodate smaller pipe because Paint at which you can not have a Pipe is 61%, You can not get in to maintain it. The minimum Al Heck felt that a 100 year storm stated that the xi usually warfced withwad too mish2�o Plan for. He Years. Item 00 of that the ae tics were acce for connection to community sewer, the mitigation measured is. , P ptable. fie felt Commisaionei^ Lambert stated that they could leave the'last se off; because they will have to,com'l tense udy. q Al Beck discussed P Y With the nitrate st He objected tej #l� y p pressurized dater systems compared to wells on #�9, � Po1 �.ce for this area doesn.t patrol. Putting in A one-time fee or a fee pro"vide the benefit that benefit. assessment fees are supposed to the construct oriPofvrooadwaytjmpsrovemefiits, bat ofiie tnaint to provide for enance comes "-t0C1't1tNiIC COM$SxgH MTNttTES 5 ' 24 L ...a tsmbet ` out of their gas tax money. ing was an district"b3theiapplicantsgwou the Chairman Verc'ead asked ould not ng rm aae wording. Instead of "formi g needed in order to provide adequate protest any future assessment service levels':•• I Al 'Beck stated that 4s long as those service eno lthen ghewould are ahavthe benefits that the people in the area receive, be a legal objection, taxing them objections, otherwise there would they doin't receive-. The wording>as it starts out in for benefits11 number 2, pro rata share, is reasonable. Chairman Yercruse was looking for appropriate language that We know that the people recognize that infrastaid ructulrthatlthey willenotnprotest b i service levels will, have to p having to pay for them. #ranon-agesystem Mr. Beck ,felt that these should bei.snat Poblems is maintenance b has to be maintained. One of theg of surface drainage c hannels. Schoenfeld, Cussiek Neighborhood Council, and they concur with any of the Mr. many .of the impacts identified hethdideinottagreeand wwithilti mthe miii1gation - mitigation measures suggested, Y,, that suggest solutions that are vague aropos measures on traffic ,' or timely itnPlementation• To proceed With this propose 'Conceived financing and any other in .this part of the Chico area without a well rhes is an invitation to implementation to all parties quality of life. He Was and t _- values ould degradat andf thepropertyit for the above reasons and because to the project opposethis prime class sail from potential Age use• They land division remove proposal as it would not deal with existing substandard the Commission rule agairint this patterns. They recommend that ted that there are may bowling alley dvised. He stated te by proposal as ill a lots. These lots do not lend themselves to an efficient use beand the rest of shaped clustered that shou 'elt that this project 'wad H e felt resitdeed9sho totag•homes the la use. l,lc3fbetput a prematu'r'e.' Chairman Vercruse stated that they had asked staff to research the its status with the j $oaed's detdtmination on the Bell Muir area and 'Bell Muir area w_as intended to be { Greenline policies: if the of of the Greenline,inAhdtsohe considered as part policies hen' awellthe Greenline then of, the po,ustuhderra seduara of the taken. Howevery it was her recollection at the time that it was created as a study consideratlOh of the Bell Muii area as Other area andedd yeas not to be consiTlzeB©rdtm1edeettioan clarifyingrthnt of the dreenl.ine: planning westerly position in 1983 wind sent thie-dell Muir4 area back to the w n n5 vDIiiF+.LVU►M C1f�1117 4V�1�.�1�AA'ixL1l4J1�+S R w�?����C �Kj 19, Commission for a General Plan change to the urban side with the stipulationthat the Greenline policies did not apply. The Bell Muir area had been +denti'fied as a study area, and by a majority vote the Board could relocate that line only for Bell Muir when ,certain considerations were taken, to include traffic and'drainage specifically. She would'like this clarified r Mr. Schoenfeld stated that if this is the case; then their points are not valid. He still would ask thisCommission 'to deliberate on the matter of the land division of this area. Joe Burrell, 2947, Nord Avenue, stated that it was his understanding regarding depth and width of frontage towards the street, that if a lot is '300 ft. deep it must have 100 ft. of street frontage, a 3-7 ratio.. 1 The hearing was closed. a' a Chairman Vereruse stated that if they are talking about encoursQttg large lo 't level opment � she seeis i t ads a' buf fer between more Intense urban uses and aq. uses. She.has, a problem with the minimum County standards that we have for large lot di'v.isjons' She realized that they, are baalanctne the cost of infrastructure and the intensity along with needed improvements, but: she felt than ttie County's minimum standards are not adequate for•'a large area of l acre lots. She wan g andar:ds. discussed the roblem with not yv' She ggest ,s P here was as to su tron er st. ha ing a'specific P1 an, but she would to to now if t like to suggest that 'prior to'approvihe anything that they have in mind stranger standards. Staff stated that for the road standards, they could attempt to find something in betWeen the two staridards that were recommended Staff wanted ,to knout If they were looking ooking for gore iw i dth, or s i`dewal ks? Chairman 'Verrcruse felt road standards for the- potent:i„al1 number, of parcel spiits,for private drives is not adequate.: in terms of the drainage, they have not seen a drainage plan. She is t.00king for where they can go in terms of ,procedure to resin 1 re some o f the standards: It, it possible to include a spedlfIC'Plan as a coeditlon? I is, i t pots i b 10 to i ne l' ude a dra i nage p 1an as a cunei i t 1 on? Staff "stated that they could include a drainage'p1an asa conelit1on, but, it raises a number of issues as to who 1s r6sponsible to pay for rer it,who is going to ppae it etc: The Countyhas entered Into a contract where the e^es i dents -agreed' to'pay a oerrta i n amount for s certrain ;amount of, work and this would be an exPension. It, would bd neceffiasr e-y .bafore a dralnHfle plan could be prepared tee know whet the development pattern would be. thore are a number of 'ways to implement. viitici blAoft measures, i.e. ,' t"oral A cid "strict; have a Bell Muir planning area with policy statements, draft a new zone With stdriddrds, 'etc; B1 TR COIIN ' pLtiNNI1;JB COMMISM P3INilTES Saptembet x4; � 9$6 ,. it Chairma:+n Vercruse did not want to create another new zone. Still there is no loverall comprehensive plan for the Bell Muir area. Staff stated that if they have direction from the Commission as to what road standards they want, and what drainage standards they want, they would be a long way toward knowing how those portions of the - infrastructure would work; and the layotit of the houses, layout of the private drives, the amount of property devoted to ;private drives are things that they do not know at this time. Commissioner Walter stated that as. far ss 1"ong narrow t:bJts are concerned, once they are created you can not etimthate them. As "far as' the overall project is concerned, he read the EIR and looked at the area. He felt that this Was a checkerboard EIR. He,di'd not feel that the EIR had much validity. His conctuslon is that the primary use of the tend in the subject appltc$tion areas, a -chard and field crops The rezoning of this area at this time Would compromise the ag operation that Is, In :ex 0 stence The present use, c)# the land Is its most product ve logical and proper use, andpartial or spot zoning of sections of the application area would:create tlloeiCal development, and ,gross 1hadequac1es in the 'Cost to the, Various property owners for thea1Mprovements requ red. i-i.is recommendation is that they 'recommend to the Board.of Supervisors that the whole project be. dropped; Commissioner Lambert. agreed, and -she was not ready to-do a'General Plan amendment on this site. She felt that they needed to look at the entire area; more needs to be 'clone. We need to have drainage plans. sewer plans, and need to know where they are going in this area, and s she feat that a apecifthat ft was an ag. txseiprimarpily,eandtay what they need. She felt _ It is good She felt that they needed some timed ltive develop a specific plan for the area -and with the Greenline consideration coming forward next year, they 'wi"ll have time to bring these things forward urging what the applicants have provided. We need, the time to find out who is going 4 to pay for what;, how much infrastructure- and what is going to be maintained out of the gas tax , and wheat is going to be maintained by a district. She ,felt that there were concerns of circulation, traffic, drainage, sewer versus septic tanks and Cal Water. It was moved by Commissioner L.atribert, seconded by Commi's,?eioner, L.yncli and carried forr denial as follows A. Find that the regUiremahts of CEQA have been completed and considered noting that st► Environmental Imapct Report was prepared, but sot certified as complete i and 13, Find that the 'proposed General plan Amendment is � AUTT Obt1t V 1?IA VN�NG GO��'9TS�lt�I� MItati7��3 �= Sepmber not consistent with the policies of the Butte County General Plan in its entirety in that the Present Land use is Orchard and Field Crops; the project would have a detrimental impact to Agricultural uses and the agricultural economy in the Chico urban area; the project would ;promote 'an illogical checkerboard pattern of urban' development; mare specific information is needed on the improvement standards including drainage, sewer, road improvements, and a layout of improvembnts; - a comprehensive plan for all improvements is needed in oder to make a finding that the project complies with the Butte County s General Plan; a specific plan is necessary to lay Out future development patterns; and C� Deny the proposed General Plan Amendment frcol Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural F.esidential for that area known as Bell Muir located in northwest Chico and more specifically defined in the Bell Muir EIR Incorporated by reference �(Mboberry/Burrell). AYES: Commissioners Peabody, Lynch, Lambert, and Walter NOES. -- Chairman'-Vercruma ASSENT: No one ABSTAINED No one Motion carried. Chairman Vercruse asked if this is denied now, what hae to happen; iri order to develop a specific p]an? Staff stated that a plan can be develaped one of ways it's a matter of who initiates it, who funds it. We acknowledge that the'r'e are planning heeds in the County, and if we wait until we have our own resources and staff it could :be a applicants to initiate this longi time. We have discussed the possibili't , q y Of allowing Private the process and is not exactly'clear what ; agreement would be. it What they have discussed is that the APplicdhts would 'have to Pay for any consultant work the Application fees, etc. They would pay a ete Processing the Portion of the staff time devoted to g project. staff felt whein it wines to spearheading beet Provided and helping to develop goals and policiddi that these could be p 4 to that ent of the staff resources aff stated Provi��od�eCt�h,aS�e artment ��hat�the�wauldneed. 60� to sign the application support and be in su of the owners the owne-is they could move brn and dopthe, entire�area.tf they had 60g of The EIR and, the ` sedt 6h did :Ad.dress the entire "block,, expan" ®d alt+arni�tivea �� '� �iJT�E COtT)�TXI �'I,AhI'NING COMMISSION MINUS mbe Ronna Mooberry/Joe Burrell, et al - General Plan Amendment (item on which a draft Environmental Impact Report has been 'prepared) from orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural - S acre parcels) located on both sides of Muir Avenue, south of Bell Road, west of Alamo Avenue, north .and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad and Borth of East Avenue, Chico. (File' 84-45) (Continued open from 8/1.3/86) Staff submitted a_memo dated 8/19/86. Al —,cj EcoAnaPysts, stated that the applicant would appreciate t definite set g r drainage and of mitigation measures: He stated the major consideration is discussed benefit assessment districts, lie stated that benefit assessment He sewage s y -stems: 1'e said they needed help t� suggest funding mecliasesent districts were b0ing supported by the courts He stated that they would have to establish a benefit between the fee and the land. He felt that traffic was the g P p laresi- impact. He requested: that this be made a art of the Chico Urban Transit Plan. Cb maissi.oner Larubert asked where tile funding was coming from, and when, for traffic,. Al Beck stated that road fees have to be on an area wide basis. Commissoner Lambert discussed the traffic on 8th revenue. taking P yet Avenue . He dcstated thatnosttoftgthhAvenueeissit the Cotuty j off ati-n measures to be specific, i e. funding mechanisms, road fees, Henstated that the urban area, concept has -to be,addressed. He also stated that Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls did a drainage plan for the, ,whole area: Chairman Vercruse stated that. the 'dralhdge in the area was bad. Mrs Beck stated that you have to Took at the overall drainage. ro; Chairmanlvorcruse stated that she was looking for something that showed how this can drain to the west. Where was a'brief discussion on a'development plan for the area and being reviewed by the Commission. Commissioner Lambert asked what drainage studies have been done. Mr. Beck stated that McCain did one, then Rolls, Andersons and Rolls just a couple A years ago. Chairman Vercru8o s"ated: that there was another one being done by Brown and Caldwell, but it doF.s not include Bell Muiri It was staff's understanding that Brown and Caldwell tight ncorpoxate:the Rollo, Anderson, and Rolls in parts in'Chapinantown Arid this one too: Bii'SE. CUUNTX 'l�l,At`1AiI�iC� Aiigilsh 17,j 186 .;,, _wok Commissioner Lambert asked how costly would it be to pre,,are a map that indicated the type of drainage or what type, of sewage, circulation, where Cal Water is, etc, they have the Brown and Caldwell 1 P Slater hookups, Staff stated that Mr. Beck stated that he had an old', ma of Gal any storm drainage plan now for, sanitary sewers. We do not have g plan; q ' pa uld the EIR adequate for a General Plan Amendment will move forward as Chairman Vercruse asked is it anticipated that sho. + this area? there still be a Specific Phan for Staff stated that they believed that there should 'be a 1. specific plan for the area. I'izere is interest on the part of some property owners to the south and east over the same issues that are being discussed in this Plan, i.e,, traffic impacts, drainage impacts,. A committee has been meeting and working on recommendations as to what should happen on contiguous , encouraged this group to contact the Maoberry/BurrellouPer'"3Ls. Staff has specific plan, that was X11 encompassing; would be advisable,butPe astaff feltff thata feels that it is unfMJt to these applicants unless the rest of the committee .is also involved in it Chairman Vercruse stated that if they do consider this as part of a larger, area, that this area is distinct in a number of ways, particularly that it had been, UP to this point and possibly in the future, on the west side of the Greenline whish makes a difference in how you look ,at it, as a buffer between ag., and urban, perhaps not as dense as other propj4rties,-to the east enc.-south`. She felt that. -this -area was different. Staff stated that it is di the other fferent; but Will still be dependent upon the infrastructure requi�re.nents. It does not haccess that is O ave a major utside of 'are a. It is totally dependent on East Avenue. Al Beck commented on tit; specific plan stating that he agreed with staff that 3t Would, be better to have a larger area and a more de*finite 'idea of what the other' infrastructure needs are as part of the specific, pian requirements: Chairman Vercruse asked, what happens an is approved bad on if the General Plse the documentation in the EIR and: the specific plan in process and they se applications coming through, where would they stand? g Staff stater: that if the project was approved as provision for err Urban Reserve was equirepron other things to occur pcertain that %4ould rosed, unless there was a before they start to develop; then they would 'have lostithe abilifjr to say, how _ going to h��ppen: Chairman Vercruse asked about the pbttibili.ty if a General Plan Amendment were approved of incoirpoxat%ng as one of the conditions the 'Urban Reserve concept: g � as well: as the mft;igatiAn meastl'res � .staff stated. that this might be used BUTTE COt�NxY PL AIhfZ�iG �. - COf�[iS�IiIIilNtRS - 'Augjtst7� 198'. Al Beck stated that the applicants have paid for this application because ' depending on another area meant several years of waiting. He did not want the people in the area to have to, wait for a specific plan to develop, Mr.Beck discussed sewer and wells. He did not feel that with one dwelling unit per acre that there was going to be a problem with sewers. Chairman, Vercruse stated that the County needs to look at how much cumulative effect are they going to tolerate from septics within an area before they want to commit. to tipping the density to making it worth putting sewers in, that one acre lots are the breaking point, that 5 acres,arefairly, safe. Between the 1. acre and the 6 dwelling units per acre, where do you decide how much are you: going to tolerate and how many Within an area are you going to tolerate? This Commission has never been asked to decide that, and it is sor+tithing the Board types Action plan. There was a brief will have', to decide when they face the Nitrate discussion on t es of soils suitable for septics. Mathew Webber asked the Eoard for some costs and the engineer did a lot of things abut infrastructure and drainage, etc. road, but he felt in the final EIR 'S rcosts 'mprovements in the area and the range from $8400 an ace tot$40,000anacre. improvements owns L acres in the area and. yhe is at minimum, looking at $16,100. He did not think that anyone had mentioned water line costs and Erre h• .►1r;,nt costs, etc., and these things have not been brought to light. Chairman Vercrtise stated that the costs are paid by anyone wishing to develop their land, not necessairly those that live there;p _ these are develo ment costs. Assessa�ent,s would be district wide and the boundary lines would have to be proposed; Benefit assessment districts can be established, and if 10% object it goes to a vote. The Board could establish a benefit assessment district and determine boundary lines) `if 10% of the people within those boundary lines object to being included then it would require the the ballot and ,voteBoard to- Put .,that measure on -. Mr. Webber stated that on these co!Lts considering the acreage that at the resentt time is available, lot. was concernede,are running between $25,00.0 and $35,000 for a ,1 acre about the cost,`with another $8;000 to $41,000 tacked, on, Cocmnissioner Lambert asked which costs are borne by the developer and: which costs are area wide. Chairman Vercruse felt that some of the mitigations that are identified here could be broken up into things that c,atil.d be borne at the time of development; g largerarea. lar er area would be sheriff rotection `the traffi that would be a and some would have to be included in arreprotection, P tion, traffic. �, road fee could not cover the infrastructure heeds in this area on their own, it wogld have to be included in a Chico urban area study.,,Other things such as drainage requirements and development standards could be parcel by parcel: nOMMissioner Vditer asked which costs would Mr. Webber have to pay when he is not going tib develop, he is already there nYF�m Chairmsn Vercruse stated those things that were established for the Chico Urban. Area as per CATS study, development fees, road fees. He would not have to pay anything, n,e, for tried to something with his property, but anybody doing of fees, if a bedroom was added 'then they would pay' school fees. Commissioner Lynch stated that if it's development fees then the developer pays as it`s developed; if it's a benefit assessment district then everyone pays. He felt that they needed to understand that, that the only time it is going to be the developer is when it is set up as a developer kind of a fee for whatever purpose, Al Beck felt that certain fees, such as fire fees, that are standard for everyone. Fire hydrants have been looked at as being shared by everybody. He stated 'that benefit assessment people have_ to know what they are paying for. There was a brief discussion on who pays tihat benefit assessments, and the need to know what is necessary for development of I acre parcels: Chairman Vercruse stated that they have not had to face the question of funding mechanisms. This Commission has never seen a presentation on benefit assessment districts. Commissioner Lambert discussed the concern for drainage on,the particular site where development is occurring, but questioned where the drainage goes ultimately if ,not perhaps impacting the neighbor down stream,- Mr. Beck stated that this is why staff talked about the need fox a specific Plan. You could approve only to many lots before you had to start being concerrQd with downstream influences. The Commission has ta-decide-which "- standards have to be required for development of 1 acre lot's,- which thitgs are benefit assessments and areawide like fire, sheriff, drainage; and fire hYBants. Then if ;107. of the residents decide that they don't want to accept the decision of. the Board of Supervisors, they will require a vote. He stated that when -you go for the 'benef'it assessment distract you have to set up a specific valuefor eacharrel,there. p if y xact cost per parcel, and you establish A base,coreandua go therebhe e som�eoneioner iioes not ter wantdevel skeIf todyishes you ops, a benefit assessment district and p, till going_. to have to pay for whatever road changes are required? qtr., Beck stated no, the developer will pay, There was a discussion on who pays what fees. Commissioner Lynch asked that assuming that they approved the zoning changes on the basis that there were going to be some benefit assessment districts and then p approval of the benefit assessment districts? g be conditioned the people in the area voted down the districts could the zoniri Upon thee a Staff stated that they do have conditional zoning, At this point in time they are talking about the General plan, Hven if the General Plen changed the ekisbing zone, A-5 conforms either way. Jtwould be at the zoning leve)when the possibility of mare devel6pment could be proposed; CNOW MW,L,IY61 lyV1'111tg8i,}/lU; MOUM' ' ti0 ti ott 17� 1086 a Chairman Vercruse stated that if the General Plan Amendment goesthrough the toning that ekists now is in conformity with that designation. ^ommissioner Lynch stated that when you get to the point of the rezone, and you are talking about assessment districts, it seems like the assessment district would almost have to come before the rezone otherwise the rezone is ineffective.' Doris Shell, 2715 Rodeo, stated that she has listened toi developers and heard about septic tanks, and she sees houses being built out in this areathat don't seem to be 'going though this process. She sees I acre parcels down the street from her, the road has not changed, they have a well out in front, they have a septic tank. She felt that they were being put upon and wanted to know if it was because they were on the ag side of the Greenline. they are different is because they, cwzi naealieran estated and they have notrbeen througthe h a rezone application. They have probably had their parcel map filed for some time or they just went through a parcel split and have: a zone that conforms: Those parcels could have 'been sitting as smaller parcels for sotime without, any development. All th me. ose ;people haue. to do is get a 'building permit. Doris Shell discussed paying the development fees over a period of years instead of all at once. Al Beck stated that road fees are usually paid .for up front. Fite And drainage, sheriff, are ongoing fees. Some fees are long term maintenance fees. Commissioner Walter briefly discussed police protection or lack of it. doe, Burrell di gr property aid they d not agree that the drained to the middle. He s had no floibd control problems during the last big storm. Lee Tirneat stated that this wasn't true, that some of the properties do drain :into the subject area. Marsha Wiemer was concerned about the traffic on Muir and concerned with densitj*� She a1sd star.,, that there is a drainage problem in the Muir and Bell area. Commissionet Lambert asked about the meetings in the area. Staff stated that there are groups contiguotts to the south and east that have been meeting. Staff stated that thty are go3ur3 to contact the College for a traffic county an origin and desti ation study on this portion of East Avenue from Highway 32 east p p. to Esplanade and will re ort at the nett meeting. Chairman V'ercruse statedthat at she back andrepn6tssioner Lambert will 'go through the, mitigation measures and Nelsyne Turner stater -that there, was a lot of traffic on.Miir, Avenue= B[�TTB `' CO't�l'T�` PLANNING `COi#MISSxf?� MINIJ'i'gS - Atigirst 27, 1�t36 ; y Donna Mooberr Joe Burrell et al. Gene which a draft Environmental Impact Reportral hasplan Amendment (item o,n Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural ResAdentialponpproperty from oned A-5 (Agricultural 5 acre parcels) located on both sides of Muir of ell t M the nSouthernnPaciBe Rai].raadeand Qf Alamo Avenue north and � of north of East Avent�e, Chic-, '(File 84-45) (Continued fz`om 6%5/86) Staff stated that the consultant has rewritten the EIR documents and they were submitted to the Commission, ;'he primary changes a included and the consultants recommendatiuns re that all the casts are improvements come to X8,400+ er acre. ' mitigation measures and, off-site p This does 'riot include the provision of- full urban the per acretfigure would nflategtod141o000. If these ,two items are included drainage cumulative impact analysis has be�Nn rewritten as requested by the Commission and staff helped identify the area of impact as being located west of Fsplanade, north of h helped do) identify east th Highway 3� p J pp denied within the: $ Y L• Staff inclucCed all ro'ects a lied for and�not .last two years. Going through; the cumulative analysis the Commission will that the proposed project represents 47� ll find the vehicle tri s. of the dwelling units and only 152 of P The consultant was present to answer questions. Commissioner tambert wanted clarification on the 47" avof vehicle trips. Staff stated that when '�° of total dwelling units and have been applied for in the East two ears you take all the projects that units you will have and how much traffic „-' YOU can count up how, many dwelling traffics mere ed11 be some commercial wi h noldwell%ngaunitsa but a lotout. of oftraffic generated. Commissioner Walter stated that paragraph : O% And are mitigated by Greenline conflicts between p g p 7 says Land use, Agriculturalists and residen�.s - use notices restricting farm equipment use to 7130 a.m� toJl0 0Ukp�inagricultural wanted to know what was meant by Greenline setbacks: Staff stated that the consultant had suggested such things as c ustdtdd the. GzPMth ne E p Ment of residences within about 200 development andjor limiting the 'lace feet of the septet of the lot. y tha lot rather than which may move them closer to the. front of Commissioner 'Walter discussed the difference between AgtkUlturalists and res dents, He felt that the agriculturalists would Also be residents. Chairman VercrusP stated that some might be, but:not All. Staff stated that in referring back to the document it does read, "new urban develbpment,w,ithn 20o feet of the greenline be set back the maximum `feasible. distance consistent Vi.th the applicable zon ng equsretnents 1t dr,ps' cin Pp y . urban' uses, ly,, a `1` to the new LhAN1�I G:1 CO►t�ilSSlbi Ml�tt17�E5 » a — August�,Tl8G A Commissioner Walter discussed clustered development. Staff stated that they ,could develop standards in'the implementation section of the document, whereas part of the planning policies would apply to later development, which might include: restricting the development within 200 feet of the rear lot line when it bumps up against the Greenline, or placing residential dwellings within 100 feet of the road in front of them, clustering within 75 feet cf a cul-de-sac and Leaving the backs of the properties open. Commissioner Lambert stated that restricting farm equipment use prom 7;30 a�►. to 10:00 p.m, is a concern; Chairman Vercruse stated that she would like to continue this item for input and review of the new document, She raised the issue of whether or not the tell -Muir area would have to meet the finding requirement in the greenline language last time, it was staff's opinion that it would. Staff stated that this was still on the Viz;, side of the greenline. Also staff stated that they would review the original records and report to the Commission regarding the; Appropriate findings: olicy needed to be changed, because it was not Chairman 'Vercruse felt that the P the intent to include this in the GresnandethisdprocessShe is futilehin light of not meet the finding 'Commission .could . findings. area' but on the thosQ findi s was get '+aside as a study , Commissioner Lambert felt that this agricultural side of the Greenline and had all the requareraents as any other property on the agricultural side of the Greenline. Ghaixman Vercruse stated that her, understanding was that yes it was on the Chair side, but that it would ilot remain so if certain problemsaneYit" ad&P-ssed and soluti�r�san�ethisoisdwhyhittWaslidentifiedrasoa,study area.g There thele was not present language, e, 5Tie felt that they were sp6-riding was a discussion on changing policy ro3ectgcould not -meet the findings, a lot of money for nothing if this p J Commissioner Lambert stated that they had the same options as any applicant. Chairman Vercruse discussed the traffic and drainage problems in the area.: hearing was opened to the public. at t Al beck was press a ent to address what was ts did has a chancethe tjR, He $htbehfelt hthat athey special study area and that -the applicanliftethe did not have a chance based ori some of cute u elr astat ementa softha't newepaIXels agripolicies, He discussed the use of he d that are created have a notice on thoineetotbetsubJeeted to noisestates that they ardustXtetc, to an agricultural use and that they are g g He stated that with bhe 'improvements seed 'street '91A mprovemtntg, Het felt. that the requirements have been met. He dt.scu straffic, hAve tynly funding that can be considered for such things to address this,oHee area Vide, The Chico Urban Area `Transit Study is trying the entire area developed to lots of one ,discussed the drainage systemsy if t y .. line is about ].:l acre or less a; urban drainage s.st.em would he needed, but the acre's 98 tUTT9 ebtINf C , LA YN Cit S N tINU'T S ~August 53, Commissioner Walter asked if ag easements have been tested in court. Al Beck stated that they have never been tested in court tohis knowledge. Commissioner Lambert asked if there were storm drainage in the area. 5taff'stated that there was; a 1985 Rolls, Anderson, and Rolls plan for sewer. Chairman Vercruse requested that this; be continued to '8/27/86 at 3:00 p.m. for the neighbors to have input. Commissioner Lambert asked if they should notify, the citizens committee.; joe Burrell Was against special invitation unless everyone receives an invitation,. Al Beck stated that when he was talking about the Chico Urban Area Transit Study;, he was talking about East Avenue and other things. These are area wide problems, and you can not expect these, people to pay for all. the improvements. Chairman Vercruse stated that all. public hearings are open. Area wide problems have been identified and need to be .addressed on a Chico Urban Area basis. Staff stated that they have contracted with the consultant to attend three hearings. The consultant has now attended two hearings, and staff :could like to save the third hearing for the Board. It was moved by Commissioner. Lynch, seconded by Commissioner`Lambert, and unanimously carried to continue this hearing to August 27, 1986.at 3:00 p.ra. Comments will be distributed to the consultant, and he, will not be present at that meeting. Al Beck stated again that he has his same objections to the tecommended mitigation measure's, for instance the Sheriff's Department.' It is ridiculous to ask the applicant tbcanttibtte a sum of money to the Sheriff's Department as a mitigation measure if they receive no 'benefit. BLI"I'TOtTVt'X l'ANNItG CO�f2tI85x0�i �iIUTES .,, August> 19 (�� Donna Mooberry/Joe'Burrell,-et_al. General Plan Amendment (Item on which a Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared) from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural Residential on property zoned A-5 (Agricultural 5acre parcels) located on' both: sides of Muir Avenue, south of Bell Road, west of. Alamo Avenue, north and east of the Southern Pacific Railroad and north of East Avenue, Chico: (File 84-45) The commission waived the reading of the Staff Findings, Staff stated that this,hearing has two purposes. Staff posted a map of the area. One purpose was to consider the General Plan Amendment; the second is to determine the, adequacy of the DEIR. A copy of the 1982 Land 'Use Plan has been posted. The General Plan Amendment raises a number #-f planning issues which have been listed in the staff 'report: focusing on tiie intE:grity of the Greenline; our planning efforts to redirect growth to the east side; and whether or not a 1 acre parcel size, which'would be allowed if the! General Plan Amendment is approved, would support the cost bf extending the infrastructure an agricultural area in, terms of the types of roads wtheich drequired. This drainag e, s and the lack of any kind of urban improvement whatsoever. The second map posted showed the locatonS of structures. Overall,' the roads have residential structures up and down with large orchards behind. The applicant's consultant prepared a third map which was posted showing parcels or 2 acres or lest in'yellow and locations of dwellings. The EIR was prepared under contract, to the county, the consultant firm is Earth Metrics, represented by Brian.Kennedy. Brian Kennedy,product manager with Earth Metrics Inc., stated that he was there to receive additional comments on the DEIR. Staff has sent him seven comment letters. These letters will .be addressed in the Final EIR. Albert Beck, Eco-Analyst,representing the applicants, stated that the applicants had major concerns, one of which is that the Mitigation Measures are so ,general. In the 'Mitigation Measures some are specific and some are very generale and the concern is that there is no established County mechanism At this point to indicatet to the .present owners and future buyers the extent of costs and services that they can expect. The applicants recognize that they Will have to make some improvements and will have to pay for them, One of the concerns of the applicants is that the EI12 does not separate out those that are 6111 a Very local banes, i.e#, pressurized water system for hydrant's, drainage; and those of a more general nature addressed on an area basis,'i:e.,; traffic signals for East and Esplanade, schools, library, police, etc. He felt that the of this steps thathetCominissiongshouldrecommend planning area is one of the to the Board. This would establish an overall level of :improvement necessary for development, Future development. was discused, and concern. with the Mitigation Measure for the Sheriff's Department, recommending an impact fee. Mr. Beck felt this is a policy decision' And shdUld not''be part of an 'impact fee structure or adopted as part of the EIR. He stated that 'it may be useful to "recomhend to the Board that they reconsider the adoption of special districts and Allow the people within biose districts to Pay for approved levels of service: BUTTE CI tJI Ty PL ►fVMING [:QMNlISg101 tINUTR w June 25 y 1�8b` le with the 'EIR. desihnatedubher understanding of�thehe Chairman Vercruse stated that she was line was drawn and the study area wasBell Muir during the Greenline process was that they took input regarding process, th% area could have gone either way. Commercially it is not upportable as commercial-pgricultural, and there was not the support in the agricultural community to D.%ke a commitment to keep it in agric:ulture;'but because the parcels were large, and because of the planning problems, draining' soil, etc., there was not a strong feeling that problems, narrow roads, good not to be p P t i£ this 'thi°:should develop' either. When the line was adopted �.t was said that The things thatrweredtalked aboutom nthatlneeded on, if certain g urbanize, it was to be area could ' things were addressed. considered were a drainage plan ,for the area, and traffic d improvements for the aThis is plan nas thatathere tea.. a planning a. was a need for specific planning for 'the area. This is not addressed in the AAIB. the Board Staff. stated that after the identificattooconsiderSaaGeneralstudyaP,lan Amendment,of Supervisors initiated an action: to possibly The Board then directed staff go out with an RFP for this an two other areas. When staff brought the cost back to the Board, the Board opted to not take any action. As a result of this the applicant deoided that they would take it upon themselves, to initiate the action, using the RFP that was originalla�'prepared. The EIR was prepared along the lines of the original UP. - AL Beck stated that one reason for the map that they submitted shows that there g P P y ed. are "some large arcels surtouncodtby development that has steadily encroach He also discussed development Commissioner Lambert askedy g acres if the were talkie about a total area of270 or .if it s maze? Staff stated that when the Board initiated a General plan ,Amendment for this area, the Board used roads for the boundaries. The 'private applicat,on being considered here is approximately 270 acres within the road boundar that are not contiguous, because the auP�ctottheacostid ooftthehe EEIR should bnd the e included fin ,that those people who contrib the General. Plan Amendmeit. In the EIR process, one of the requirements is to consider project alternatives:: One alternative was to consider using the Board.'s suggested General Plan Amendment area which "follows roads, atc.. Commissioner Lambert asked, i£ v eincltaideoju tisthbseswhorare:paying d formed oforhthe infrastructure improvemen s, Would EIR? Staff stated that a district with discontiguous boundaries is going to have serious problems. Staff stated tha} there are a number of small parcels, And from the General Plan about 75t of them are develop ed that were excluded ,amendment area. Al Beck added that the people who contributed to the ttk'are concerned about Including A lot of lots north of Bell Road where people slready have a t to pay for any more improvements, This set limits subdivided lot and '.'don t want ndarcls their chance of getting 'service area He felt that they for as aide an area as possible. G, CGI$04i ti WT �uiie5�i' 1156 yy ,5. rt ae4f qT,a V 01 a Robert Olson, Alamo, stated that he drove around the area. He stated that it is about 2/3 a5• land that looked healthy and productive. He questioned how many new residences are in the proposal., Staff stated approximately 30 within the project area. Robert Olsen stated that the S -R and SR -1 has a lot of undeveloped area in it.. He questioned if the area needed more residential development, Joe Burrell stated that out of the 400+ acres there were 232 homes, Don Heffren stated the issue was the Greenline. He felt that they needed a study area. He was in favor of this proposal. He felt that there was a need for 1 acre lots in the area. Chairman Vercruse stated that she understood 'what neither:` the coalition, Farm Bureau, Commisaioners or Board, had made a commitment for this area on the west side of the Greenline, and that is why it was separated out. Sne asked lir. Heffren if as a member of the Farm turedu Board'of Directors and a participant in the coalition, if that was his recollection also, Mr. Heffren stated yes it Vas. Doris Shell, Rodeo., was in favor of the project. She stated that they can not farm the area, can not make money. Rodeo Road, she said, was -2/3 houses.:, Nelsyne'Turner wanted good land in ;ag. production. She wanted them to protect the good soil. She stated that they were not.bothered with nitrates, but if this is allowed to go into one acre parcels thete will be problems with nitrates, She was against the project. Chairman Vercruse 'stated that the EIR did not focus on the traffic problems drainage problems, etc,. Doris Shell stated that the traffic problem is worse than it used to bO, She did not feel that a few more houses would increase traff;lc that much. Mathew Webber' was concerned with the cost. He stated that construction equipment would be needed on th1. e roads; who pays "for maitenanc:: of roads; who pays for sewers, water .lines, etc.? Chairman Vercruse questioned Mr. Kennedy on the EIR. She asked if he was Chairman V this from the standpoint of prop<sing a project to mitigate certain things that were raised in past hearings; "did they approach it from the standpoint that they recUgnixed the documer_ted testimonies and bearings and �.:isions that have been made up to that point anal to recommend specific ;�tigations for the applicants, or Were they you documenting ,.,6coguimed problems t_ at needed somehow to be mitigated? Mr, ZWpnnedy stated that there.'was an intent ire both Areas• He stated that their ,.,.. ability 4 p veils to take lace and the delimited by the policy decisiottnak3nf�that needs o ti atpla measures is decision that .needs to take .� � g lace Prior to a specific development proposal. we should recognize that this g p_ P is a draft Ellt. He was there to hear what the Commission needed fro- m the document in terms ,of specific:mitigation measures A COIT' FI114NING: G�riSSld�tIH'fiRS .iune 25z i8i t - r Chairman Vercruse stated that as outlined here in the EIR, participating in the Master Drains gr Plan for the Chico Urban Area says nothing. It does not pinpoint any, kind of infrastructure ,requirements for this ,area; She stated that What, will it cost.applicants; whatdo drainage district.;: if they do, she needs to know, are the willing to form a d they want to do with the district; and Where do they want it to go? How is it going to work? She was disappointed that the EIR was not done for the whole area. Commissioner Lambert questionedthat the EIR was, paid for by the people in the . Pannot an impartial EIR rather than an EIR as they have had in the done for but is Stan applicant by an, applicant? Staff stated that this was an impartial EIR. It was limited to the applicants' Property because they paid for the EIR.. A larger area was 'considered ;in the project alternative section. Staff stated that the applicat„�.on Prov -idea for a prc+ject, and there was an alternative section that discussed t If the concern is that thehe entire project,, 'alterhative was not discussed in depth enough to respond to the questions that are being raised, this steeds to be ;considered before the Final EIR is prepared,. Chairman Vercruse feet that the EIR was done backwards; rather than have that be the alternative, the whole EIR would have been written using the area, and the alternative world be to limit it to the people who were coming forward, The, numbers would have been different. Staff stated that the pro and you coeect was not the whole area, there are little J ld not really look at it as a whole, islands, could do at thPoint, as far as the draft y LIR wasisconcerned'. F ,Commissioner i,ambert asked what the Staff stated that this hearing is for both the General plan Amendment and the EIR. They might want to take the EIR first and have comments from the q y, y, ch , .tld help to bring the: document up 'to a level of Commission today., whi ade uac Include whole Vercruse stated that she would like this LIR written C hole area to include all the impacts, and would like tc, see tiie htitigatthe Measures specific to the area and not dejoh pendent upon whatever master plan or ton rail eplant exist for the Chico Urban Area: She felt that the Mitigation Me suresgAs of outlined Measures as o ned are roadequate, She would like to mpacts related to see more documentation the density as proposed with these applicants included in the whsle, not just individually. She would like to. see .some infrastructure proposals, how to solve the drainage, where to put the pipes and culverts, where it is going to drain, and the cost:. She would like to see what it to briny cost and how much they world have to improve the roads within the area g them up to County standards, if districts being proposed, she awide district> not would like to see those districts proFosed as an areare ,just linesrelated to those applicants She would also like and cost, tO see projections for sewer. Coumtissioner i,ambert stated that in addition to this, they can not :look at this as an isolated item within these boundaries becausd they have ,a great deal of land 'already, zoned for resfdpntiai.use,'the 146tthw,est Chico iteione, that has not. Ep A ii PLIdNItCr' CLiMFtfSSIO �W MINU'ES dune ` w 4 been infilled. There is a committee working on the area surrounding this, west P p gy y. The are concerned who want to reconsider existing ronin because of the d of ye es oncerned with .the impact that is already there should the area ens t_ buildout to General Plan densities;. Chairman Vercvuse stated that one more thing she would like to see included is,, thatnothing should happen here -unless the urban boundary line,'City,sphsre of influence, of the Chico Urban Area is expanded to include Bell Muir. This would take agreement :on the part of the City. She stated that she, would like i.mput from the City on this issue should the Chico Urban Boundary Area and sphere of Influence be expanded. Mr. Kennedy felt that this reflects a change in the project description and would require some specific findings made by the applicants as to what they want to propose and what has been addressed. He stated that he will have to work with the Planning Department :and applicants. Commissioner Lambert stated that. the Commission had alternatives pointed out by staff; one was the possibility of making -a decision, yes or no; another` is the middle- of-t%�.e-toad approach such as an Urban Reserve, which has been used in the past. She was not sure that there was any advantage to an Urban Reserve: Restricting development to,5 acre parcels. Staff stated that the Commission is not considering a rezone, subdivision,. or, use permit, so other methods must be considered to assure Mitigation Measures are implemented. An Urban. Reserve overlain on the existing General Plan designation could require the accomplishment of the mitigations before a change of the General Plan or zoning. Staff suggested that if the Commission recommends approval of the General Plan Amendment they must include a specific iaeans to implement the, Mitigation Pleasures: Staff stated that they t4.ould- ave to look at the RFP for the DEIR: If there are issues that have been raised by the Commission that would amend the project description,' then the contract must be renegotiated and the applicant would have to"agre"eto Bear any additional the cost: Staff suggested that this be continued open and let tts report bacXi It *tas noted that there was a consensus to follow up on this, A1. Beck stated that one of the concerns of the applicants is that they get what they paid fare The Applicants want the information that was necessary to make this a complete RIR for the proposed project: E4e stated that the Commission would like to make it for 400 acres; the primary project is t7o acres. If the Commission wants a larger study; it should be the Planning Commission that pays for it Chairman Vercruse stated that if they can not pursue the larger EIR, wouldn't it still be pertinent to their project area to include the 'cumulative impacts reeogniing what is around thein. , Pk Al Beck stated that those are req required CEQA And would not be anew o ject. BUi"P CdU t'L�Y PLANNING COtSMi5SY0 MiNU'SES � June SZS� ��1g6 - Y 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Pte: PREFACE ... .,... .... ••• 'V 1. PROJECTDESCRIPTION .::....., ..............:...........:.... 1-1 1.1 Location and Character of Project Site ....: ....... 1- -1.2 1.2 Project Characterizzics...:... . ..... 1.-1 1.3 Intended Use of the EIR ........ 1-$ 2. SUMMARY ....,. ....,... ...: .... " 2-1 2.1 Pro feet Impacts and Mitigation Mea"sure"s ............... 2-1 2:2 Alternatives Evaluated :..................... ...,.:.... 2-2 2.3 Areas of Controversy/Issues to be Resolved ......;. 2;6-3 I. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIG14IFICANT OR POSSIBLY SIGNIFICANT-' 1=STING SETTING, IMPACTS AND '�I0t1 MEASURES ............. .........+ ... ....:..... MITIGAl 3.1-1 3 4,1Land Use, Planning, Applicable Plans and Policies :...:;. 3:1-1 3.2 Traffic and Circulation ....- ....... ... ........... 3':2-1 3.3 Geology/Hydrology ...... ... .... . ..•0... 3-•3-1 3.4 Public Services and Utilities .•.':.......:......... ...: 3.4-1 if. ALTERNATIVES ...... ..•... :,. ....>... ... 4»4 4.1 t7ProjectAlternative 4-1 4.2 Expanded Project Area Alternative ........ -2 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH'CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ....::.......:...: .......:.. 5,x-1 6i GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS .. ............:..::..... ...: .... . 6-1 7. 'CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ..::.... ....-......:.....:..:...... 7-1 8. RELATIONSHIP'BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT -AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY...a.:...:......:...i..........:...a.», 8-1 q. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ..... . 9-1 10. 'EFFECTS NOT POUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT :....:.. ...; ,...�.:.. 10-1 O j16 LIST OF COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR •..►•..•...,..a,»a•a..,'....: 11-•1 12. ON THE DRAFT EIR COMMENTS RECEIVED. ...c::...;:. 12-1 1$: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EiR .+...' .:a:::64.:6.4... 13-1, i Section 14. REFERENCES: PERSONS AND PUBLICAT16NS CONSULTED Page 15 PREPARERS OF THIS REPORT ....,.... .••• 14- 16; APPENDICES 16.1 .. ,, :.: , 16...1; Initial Study •. •to 16.2 16.3, .... ,. .. Letters ' n Re9ponse •Notice •of •p • . ; . . ' • . List reparation 16.1-1 16 4 ...,....ti of Parcels Involved in the General- Plan Amendment Applicable Zoning Regulations 16,2_-1 16,x_1 ,i 16.5 16.6 •. .:._ ..<..: Chico Area Greenling Policy .... 16.4-1 ., �...,-....:..... Minor Revisions to Figure 3.1-1 ... M , General P Map Plan _ i6 1 67 16.8 ............::..:. Land Use Population Data in But�:e G •�•���• " " " " ••••.'.. ,• ' aunty ....:...::. Demographic 16.6 - 1 16,9 Data in Butte Go-nty.;••. .,•.• •,.:..•." 16.7=1 16.10 Reasonably kitici F '.••.•..•. .• Methodologies P' ated uture Protects in the Area 16.8-1 `16. and Assumptions . ,,• Estimating the Costs of .Recommended Mipi ati,ono `x E 9«1 • 16 i1 . ..,......... Memo .... P from Supervisor Dolan to Board o_" Supervisors Im rs 16.10-1 ;Outliningan lementation Program for the Nitrate Action Plan 16.12 ......:....: .......�.... Discussion, of Public Improvement F 16.11-1 ::Ianci.ng .Methods , , � � • 16,12-1 JJ LIST OF FIGURES Page" M Figure 1.1-1 Regional Setting; of the .Project Ste... :.. 1-2 M 1.1-2 Local: .Setting of the Project Sita.. .. • . • • • • 1-3 1.1-3 Location of Parcels involved in the General Plan Amendment.. 1-4 3.1»1 City and County General Plan Land Use designations 3.1_3 in .the Project Vicinity .........:....,.................., 3.1-2 Zoning nes rations in the Project Vicinity .... • . • 3.1-5 3.1-3. Location of the Chico Area Greenline ... .... . ..... 3.1-12 3:2-1. 20 Year ImProvement Program 1980 to Year 2Q00 ... ........ ...; p 3.2-3 3.2,-2 Recommended Street System at Fall Buildout. -.4a ... 3.2-5 3.2-3 Butte.: County .,irc ulat on Element Diagzam...`:................. 3,2..10 3 "-4 Bikeways Plan of the Chico General Plan. ..: ...;,. ..<;.•..,• 3.2`12 3,4-1 Potential Sewer Extension Plan :...:......;.... �,...._:.....,.. 3.4-3 i 3,4-2 Summary of Storm Drainage Facilities Required in the - - -- 3.1� 4 - North Chito Area....... .................... ......:..: . - eLIST OF TABLES ;Fable Page 1.2-1 Existing and Projected Development ;Scenarios ..............:'. 1-5 2.1-1 Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measure; ....... 2-4 ■ 2.1-2 Summary of Approximate Cost for Required and Recommended Mitigation ....... .......... :.......... .....,..:.,. .. . 2-18 2.1-3 Summary of Total Cost for Required' and Recommended Mitigation ..:.......... .....:....:.......,....... ... z-19- Project, Area. 3.1-2 3.1-1 Agricultural Uses :and Yields, from the .....:.., 3:1-2 Projected Buildout Population of the Chide Area Based on the Chico General Plan Land Use Map ... .... ..:.. 3.1-7 3.2-1" Description of Level of Service for Intersections •...•..•.•. 3.2-2 3.2-2 Existing Levels of Service at Applicable. Intersections in North Chico During' the P.M. Peak Hour ..+.:..:.....:......... 3.2-6 3.2-3 Existing j j sting and Projected Traffic Volumes on Major, Streets in the 'Project Area ..:,........,..beet ....................... 3.2-7 3.2-u Estimated Future Daily Traffic Increases Associated with the Proposed F+roject.......-......... ..:.......•.......:.b.....r 3.2-14 3.2.-5 Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes on Major Streets in s•2-15 the Project Area. With and Without the Proposed Project ...•.. !3:3-1 gitrafe::lla to;;in the Project Vicinity .. ..... ...:........:.. 3b3-4 7=,1 Quantitative Sumtbary of CumulW ve Zmpatts ,. , • • • : _ : : • • • .` 7-2 i ir` YREFACE The Butte County Planning Department has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is -required for the proposed General Plan Amendment related to the Bell -Muir PropE;�y. tinder the California Environmental Quality Act, the purpose of an Enviretvv"!ntal Impact Report (EIR) is to provide objective information to public, decision makers and the general public regarding potential env.ironmer.tal effects resulting ;from project implementation. Butte County can then ins':itute'methods of reducing adverse impacts or consider alternatives to the project. This Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for Butte County in conformance wit the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) As ' amended. The degree of specificity required in an Environmental Impact Report corresp____d to 'the degree of specificity involved in the Underlying activity. The;prrposed General Plan Amendment does not involve construction ref projects; therefore, the analysis presented in this report is more general than the analysis which could oe required if the project were,a specific development proposal. CEQA Guidelines section 15116 states the following regarding the degree of specificity of an Environmental. Impact Report: (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the, project, than will be an FIR on the adoption of a local General Plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance 'because the effects of construction can be predicted with greater accuracy. (`b) An EIR on a`projects such as the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive zoning ordinance ora local General Plan, should focus on the secondary effects expected to follow from the adoptions or amenrlbent, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR on the specific construction projects that might follow. The :Resources Agency of California has adopted amendments to the Guidelines ' for vironmen#a The EIR'. uideline:6 allots the preparation of an EIR which addresses only thgl Impact Re oras which incorporate the recent changes i significant project effects. butte County Planning Department identified a number of areas in which the project could have significant effects on the environmentj g includin land u"se, planning; traffic, sails, drainage, econpublic ser omics, pvices an4 utilities (see Appendix 13.1 ini r 1, PROJECTDESCRIPTION .1 LOCATION AND CHARACTER OF PROJECT SITE The properties it lved in the proposed General Plan Amendment are, located in unincorporated Butte Countyi adjacent to the western side of the ity of Chicc, California. The affected area involves approximately 270 acres within A larger 430 acre neighborhood bounded. by Bell Road, Muir Avenue, Alamo Avenue, Henshaw Avenue, East Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The regional and local setting of the project area are presented in Figures ' y. The project area and affected parcels are 1.1-1 and 1.1-2, respectivel identified in Figure 1.1-3. The affected parcels are listed in Appends 13.3 by Assessor18 Parcel Number and acreage rThe project areais currently used for residential and agricultural purposes. Portions of' the project area have. been subdivided into one acre parcels for residential uses, which is inconsistent with the existing General. Plan Land Use and zoning requirements in the area, However, the majority of the project area is developed with walnut orchards and other agricultural uses on larger ®, parcels. 1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS The proposed project is an amendment to the Butte County Ganeral Plan Land Use r Map and a revision to the ChiArea froareenlinei "Agr.eulturee Orehardamendment andWould Fiel change,o. " the count -s land Use designationCrops" y' (five acre minimum parcel size) to "Urban; Agricultural - Residential:" (one acre minimum parcel size)•. The amendment is an administrative action ide would not involve construction. - The proposed Urba.,c Agricultural Residential ]and use designation will encourage private property OWMr1'3 to subdivide ide esntial development. ApproximLttdfl:�' 30 residential existing parcels for r units currently exist ein s the project :area. The existing ;Maid use designation would allow for the construction of an additional 20 Units, for a total of 50 residential units with buildout, of the area. T proposed General Plan Amendtueht Would allow for tho construction of a The p tree units, for a total of 300 residential units, maximus of 270 new residential With build out of the area Table 1.2-1) Dertelopment of additional urban.usmis in the project area would require relocation at the Gt"eelinh which is constown e theoChi�Snof AreatGreerilinef Chico/Count, of Butte Greennline Would.: he considered. �' The a primary part of the proposed project because the existing Greenling defines p ion of the limits of t`iature urban develo meat and provides long term protect agricultural. resources in the Chico Area of Bute C,tiunty, Tb project area lies within air area defined as the Chico Area Greenling Study Area number i" (See Section 3 1r Ladd Use, Planning, Applicable Plans and Policies), However, the ,Greehline revision Would not be the same as the line defihing Study Area ttumIer is The now Greenline would follow the boundaries of the parcels affected by the General Plan Amendment (see Figure 1.1-3)• r r r