Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 14 OF 21This alternativa also would provide for one acre minimums parcel 'sizes, allowing approximately 33` new residences in the area (60 more re9idences than Gi under the proposed project). Under this alterna.ta:ve, 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 bthe proposed project. The following discussion clarifies the ,differences bee tween the impacts of the proposed project and this alternative. LAND USE PUNNING APPLICABLEPLANS ANA POLICIES. The Expanded Project Area Alternative would allow for improved internal land � ��� #It ii yasetwe n urban and agricultural uses of allowing the removalp^edom.nant use of thee -project area. The pattern. of land u.:e designations Mould be Lit use ofd more logical and stable than. under the proposed project. pot would further disrupt the cit N' However, the expanded development me intention to guide development to: other areas in awould be ino and away '' with a . Beneficial housing supply impacts gri,cul total. lands the potential for' odditional units. TRAFFIC AND CIRC"JLATION. The increased development potential of the Expanded Project Area Alternative would increase the aignificano.e of the incremental p e proposed project. Measures to mitigate impact of trips generated by the impacts end related funding for, realigning unconventional interseritians and for cons"rueting imprvvement defined in the CATS Would become afore important ansa urgent. However, due to the relatively small difference between the two alterna+Ives this alternative would not be significant on incremental level,, $ut would add to cumulative traffic impacts. GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY. Soils and seismic impacts would (onentially different with a,_higher number of units at an eq , this, alternative would add Suait/acre). As compared to the proposed prnjeet, more impervious surfaces (increasing runoff), and wool' contribute more urban pollutants to local haters. Storm drainage and sewage treatment systems would be expected to be sor%ewhat more costly and extensive with this alternative. The feasibility .of a newer trunk extension would_increase with A higher overall densityt of development in the area. The adaiti6nall increase prunits allowed and PUBLIC SERVICEIS AND TITILITIES. er the Expandod. Pt eject Area .Alternative would i ity that connection to tae City of Chico's sewer trunk line would be required to miniml,ze n� tr�,t,a contamination in the project area. However, the .net�d for 'a trunk e2:tiension 3aanot be determined until the sewerage study is completed. im y;L,�tt of the additional 'residential units allowed under the The pritn��r�yw I Expanded Protect Area Alternative would be 'an increased demand for public fire, services and utilities; including sewage teeatmdnt, water, police, schools, storm drainage facilities, road maintenance, libraries; parks and recreation facilities and hospitals. The differences between the demand under the proposed project`And the demand under this alternative would not be •however, far fire protection and schools, any considered significant, ,;. additional demand would be considered, signficant.�,G n-2 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS' Development can result in impacts Which are individually minor, but which, when combined with impacts associated with other projects, accuLtulate to more substantial proportions. Impacts of concern from a cumulative perspective include: 'Loss of prime agricultural land to urban development and additional adverse land use compatibility bnvacts. Changes in planned land rises and the related weakening of the city's land use planning policy which encourages development in other areas of ' Chico (growth inducement).; Additional traffic and related impacts such as poise and air quality degradation in the North Chico area. Increases in urban pollutant .level and nitrates in soils and water in the ,north G'S3:co area. Increases in the demand for public services, including sewage treatment, water, police, fire, schools, road mei.nte-nance , parks, :recreation facilities, libraries and hospitals; V Yk ry Vt "eeuu.. y. A . a " x Cnv+ a.y,1 �e i'r r�i (-1 p� RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN"S ENVIRONMIfitT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT -OF LONG TERM'_ PRODUCTIVITY, The relationship between local short term rases of maii's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity is often one of tradeoffs or balancing social, econemie, and environmental impacts over time. 1 In some cases, a relatively short term benefit may have adverse cumulative effects, with the possibility that future generations .and the future economy may be burdened 'with unwarrantedsocial and environmental costs. Theoppos tt situation, in which long term benefits occur at the expense of short term dislocations, also is possible. Decisions that influence the balancing of such impacts for this project are the responsibility of Butte County ;as part of its policy making and regulatory function. The project's t term adverse impacts would T proposed "ro ect's shoe result from construction allowable after the proposed General. Plan Amendment, Long term impacts would involve the loss of agriculfuilal land, and growth inducing ' impacts in Western Chico through revision of the Chico Area Greenline and the extension of public services (especially sewer lines). yy 1 a 9 { r n. . L Mw, i m 1 a 4 &1 i * +RE'T'RIEVABLE COMMITMENT nF �.—,- RESOURCESBLE ENVIRONMENTAL GANGES AND IR ERSI The following irreversible environmental changes would .result from the incremental, butnot cumulatively proposed project. Thebe changes would be y significant. Loss of agricultural land. Extension of public services to the project site. The following irretrievable commitments of resources would result from the incremental, cumulatively but not These commitments would be proposed project. The sgnificant.ion pt of energy and nonrenewable resources .for construction ,and allowed by the proposed project. - operConsation of the additional residences 1' u 4 J. Y i ;t 1 11. REFERENCES_ PERSONS AND PUBLICATIONS OONSULTED 1CC Greater Chico Urban Butte, County of, and City of Chico, Nitrate Action Plan, Y Area (1985)• `� Com rehensiate Zonj Ordinance, Number 1750 (1984) Butte, County of, D Butte, County of , General plan (1984) . t -• ru- r�`- _ ci e" rtment, Revised Draft Envro Environment ]-�Tm. �3Ct����� But 6,Aq County. a Crisco area Land Use Plan - An Amendment to the Butte CauntY General Plan (1982) Butte, County af, SafetY' Element of the General plan (1977)• Butte, County af, Seismic Safet Element of the General Plan (19777• •�-' '•Dire for of He `. Calarco, Mr., alth Education, Butte County public Health, telephone oommunication (1986). California, State. of, Department of Transportation, 8 Tri Ends Generation Res catch:Counts (1973). *h 'y..nnress eport on R California, State , Department of Water Resources, Ground Water^.. Basins in of California (1980). California, State Of, Department of Water Resources, Stud_v of Nitratese Ground Water of the Chict3 Area, Butte County (1984) al Plan. (1985)• G'biico, 'City of, Chita Genet Chico, City of, Environmental Review G (1985)• uidelines City S isions (1985) Chico, Cit of, Title 18 �ubdiv Chico, City of, Title 1 hand Tse Regulations (1985) Derrick, William, Transportation'Coordnator City of Chico; telephone'' communication (1985)• �.nd 1 ina1 Environmental 3:mct Re or for Earth Maf Metritis Incorporated, Drt , th eProposed Central Chieo Redevelopment -Prosect (1985) p ronmesital Ym ct lie ort Por..the North Earth. Metrics Incor orated, Draft Erni (1985) YalYey Plaza Area Anneaation ne9 preuo 1 and Development Agrcement Ede11, Stuart, Associate Civil Engineers, Butte County public Norks Department, telephone communication (1985): Grant, ne, District 'Manager, California stater Services Company, telephone Ge communication 0986) f� �x 11-1 , t .r� N. 1 2; PREPARERS OF . THIS REPORT' hico- d This report was prepared by th" Cit/S—hacag Earth Metrics Incorporated Burlingame, Calif:: nia. Earth Metr no financial interest In the approval or, disapproval of the proposed project. The Earth Metrics staff Who participated in thiki Work are; Russell Leavitt, B.A., Project Director Brian Kennedy, B.A., Project Manager Alexander, B.A. �1 Lynn p hr Haddad, M.S. See Jeanne Marsch. 'B.A., Production Manager - Caesar Jhanapi n Graphics i i rl ! 12-1 13. APPENDICES 13.1 Initial Stud 13,.2 Letters in Response to Notice of Preparation 13.3 List of Parcels Involved in the General. Plan Amendment 13.4 Applicable Zoning 1e7ulatons 13.5 Chico Area Greenliine Policy b- IIiY r� V t� INITIAL STUDY APPENDIX 1 COUNTY OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORA (to be complete y Lead Agency) 84-oz-27-03' • Log x.84-01-13-02 BACKGROUND AP b` Various 1. Name of proponent-.�4oberrv$_LLr�a�� i B�zard�.e�.f Supervisors 2. Address of proporent and representative (if applicable) Mooberry/Burrell Board of Su grviso P rs .. 2 .Alamo/2947 1Jord Ave . 25 County Center Drive Chicis o, CA 95926 OroVille, CA 95965' 3. Project description . General—Uan_Ame,ndment. , MANOATORY FINDINGSOP $IGNIPTCANCf YFS lIA� FiL NO a, Does thaproject have the otential to dograide the qualityof the environment'substantial!)' reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or elimina.evimportant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? h. Does the `Project have the potential to achieve t- short-term benefits f l to the detriment oon term ?: ' environmental goals? sshort-terimpact on the environment isonewhich occursinma relatively brief period of time whiie long-term impacts will endued into the futCtTe,) Does the project have im^acts which are i'nd" ividu- : slly limited, but cumU 'cively considerable? (A ' praject may impact on two or more separate ferources where the _impact on each rosoui'ce is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d, d, hoert the have project environmental effects Which `human_' Will , cause substantial adverse effects on beings, either directly or indirectly? 118T1~0t1NATiQN (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the. basis or this initial evaluation,t. i/WC find the proposed project COIILb NOT have a Significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE bkLARATION Will be prepared, f/Wr find that although the proposed project could have a signifi- cant effect on the environment there will not be a significant ef'fec't in this case because! the MITIGATION MEASURES described on' the attached sheet have been added to the project, A NECATIVI t1T;CI,ARATtON will be prepared. 1/WPI find the proposed project W have a significant effect on the enViton, mentf and an ENMONM9NITAL MPACT REPORT is required. C p. :. . T t' , .,�fa_Y 1 198'9 ._ COUNTY OF AUTTG; PLAt�NI'tJG n.PARTMEN'r _.. .............. Laura %xjj-u-L �e V, Assistant Planner IV ENV IRONMENTAL IMPXCTS xp,_anat ons o� �7'"yes" and "ma;rbe" answers are required On attached sheet(s)`) YES MAYBE NO ]. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant: �. i changes in a'.'—"instable earth. conditions or in geologic subs�xucture ? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoveringOff the soil" c. Change in topo raphy cr ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unque;geologi: or physical features? e. Increase in wind,or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? f` Changes in deposition or erosion of beach orndsj or eros-ien��+hi. }h may modifyhanges in lth, deposition • e channel of a river or' stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Soils g. Loss of prime agriculturally p7oductive so_ outside designated urban areas.. h. Exposure of people or property to geologic l hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud- slides.:, ground failure or similar hazards? Z, AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial': T.— Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The crea7ion of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes. . moisture, or c.. Alteration of air movement, temperature, or any change �n:climate,_ locally or regionally? 3. WATER. Will the proposal result :in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in etliie`r, marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates,'draintge patterns or the rate and amount of surface ruvllff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improve- ments, including vegetation removals cx�innel % nation or dul'vert installation? -- -- d. Alterations to the course or flout of flood waters? e. Change in the amount of 'surface water in any Water ,body? cc waters, or in any f: Discharge into suxfa alteration' of surface water qualityy including; but riot limited to temperatsre, dissolved ozygen or turbidity? g, Alteration of the direction ;or rate of flow of ground waters? y--- h. Change in the quantity of, ground waters, either through direct additions of wi�hW drawa:ls; or through interception of azl q t. ns ? -► A uYfer by' cuts or exca� atio a. Reduction in the Amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? j; t4osure of people or property to water relA4eii hazards such as fld6dingl. t - YES MAYBE, ho TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will the proposal ' a. uGeneration of substantial additional vehicle movement? b Effects on existing parking facilities, or a demand for new parking? c Substantial impact on existing transportation >L systems? d Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? • to motor vehicles, f. Increase in traffic izards Y - destrazar? bic cltsts or ne 14. PUBLIC SERVICES;. Will the proposal have an effect d upon, or result in a, need for new .or altered governmental services: ai Fire protection? b. Poli+,e protection? c. nrr d. Pair,cslor other recreational f acilities? ._. e'. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f Other governmental services. 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in,,? a. s'e of 'substantial amounts of fuel .or energy. b. Substantival increase- in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of -new sources of energy? in a need for - --- 16. UTILITIES. Will the propsal result substantial alYkNations to the new systems, or following. a. Power or natural gas? b. rommun=cations systems? C. Waters septic tank? d. Sever or e. Storm water drainage? J. Solid caste and disposal? ._._ 17. HUMAN'.HEALTH. Will. the proposal result in a -reation of any health hazard or potential health hazard ('excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? lg: AESTHETICS. �Proposal result in the w open to struction of any scetcvistavi theublic; or Will proposal result in the - „the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 134 If variances arc; granted or boundary line modifications are � approved, these figures could be '" 5 Q higher. _g er_ More specifically - 261 -522 homesites equals 626-1,252 persons 115-229 school children 6,2:60-12,520 daily vehicle trips 1 new community pa lil (more or less 5 acres) .6--1.2 new police officers runoff 432 cfs (see Chico Area Land Use Plan) The "7y size and intensity of the project dictatos that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or a suppliment to the Chico Area Land Use Plan EIRbe prepared. In 1982 an t-111 was r epared on the Chico Area Land Use Plan, which included these properties Regional setting, soils and other back ground information which, would also apply to this project are sufficiently covered, and should be referenced. aThe nd EIR does of discuss circulation within the "Bell -Muir" area ng zone of A-5 or A-10 until a specific plan is prepared to discuss' circulation and drainage, (Page 122)s Bell -Muir, outside of the Shasta Union Drainage Assessment Dis- trict, has been identified as lacking drainage facilities and ex- periences localized flooding. CPage 85) Development of Bell Muir would be contrary to the Land Use Element policy of restricting devolo mens in flood prone or areasotherw .s e lacking drainage improvements It was further recommended that a distrigt(s) `,�e formed to fund - all public improvements. While this project is Located ovtsa,de of the high ,nitrate area* the Division of Environmental health states continued urbanization on septic tanks will undoubtedly increase ground water deteriora- �' tion: (Memo of March 20, 1984) The Chico Unified School District has'noticed Butte County that continued approval of develppment projects within the district, absent AL funding mechanism, constitutes an unmitigated signifi cant impact. ., This ETR mai beprepared referencing the Chico Area Lartd ()se EIR for backgraund informations' and focus on checklist items:. 1; overcoveting of soiljerosion 5 drainage, increased sedimentation, surface and ground water quality 8,11;12: land use issues such as., justilicat,ion and h6e.4 for General plan Amendment impact on the already approved development in the east 'nciuding the 'extensive investment in public improvements. =5 _ APPENDIX 1J.' Letters in Res Ni onse to Notice � p e of Preparation me COr PLANNING OFFICE '• 9 "�'' �n cbw r� ��r«, ��-a ►�;r� � sfeec�s F E a 2 4 1984 CI7YcxCHIC0 P0 Box '410 Vie, GeUfoenia February 23, 1984, r"K Ch to CA 959: z xATSS 459.41+"+" Butte County Plasnning Department 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA. 95965 rREt. Midway Orchard, Heidinger/Sweet Nectar, and Bell -Muir General Plan Amendments r The City of i Chico finds that the proposed projects noted ;above are in direct conflict' with the 100 Compromise Plan and urban growth policies established after 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 to prepare a Draft r Environmental 'Impact Report addressing the following items for each .rojeet area: 1. The justification and need for the General Plan amendments 2. The impact on the already approved development in the t inclug din the extensive investment in public improvements' as a result of development in agricultural areas west of the adopto:d Greenline. 3. Impacts on public services and public improvements including, but: not limited to €filly improved streets,, storm drainage, schools, parks, police and fire protection. 4. Project impact's on shallow well, domestic water systems, and in particular, potential increases in nitrate ;levels within each project area._ r5: Traffic generation and circulation problems as a result of full buildout in the project area: The City Would like to be kept informed or any action to be taken on the above projects, andis looking forward to reviewing and c-ommenting on enVironmental. dodtimenta prepared: for the proposed projects. r Sincerely, - Edwin R Palmeri Assistant Planner RRP.pb rA -BG --3 M, 1.3- 94_061909 DISTR EMT_ ICN LIST Pm SCH o, 3 - Sent by lead Agency A - tent by Clearinghouse Anne Geraghty Air RGera Geraghty Board 1 Bill Murphy Dept. of Housing & Cawunity Dev t. 921 - 10th Street, 5th Floor O1102 Q Street J 'Satr�mento, Cil 958Y4 Sacramento. CA 95814 9i8J322-6161 916/323-6170 0 n Barbara gierbow " Dept. of 'Boating & Watervays 1629 S Street O Loretta Allan Native American Heritage coca, 9:5 Capitol Call, 288 Sacramato, CA 95814 \, J��:JJ .Roan 916/322-77 Ca 95814 916/322-7791 916/323-9488 - Holloway Gary Rollaifoollo Costal Ca=-. Floor ® Nick del Cioppo office of Historic Preservation 1D50 20th Street O631 Howard Street; 4th 94105' G 95814 San Fraaciscos CA 916/4SaczwAaento, 916/4-t5-8006 415/543-8555 0 Sheri StcFarland California Energy Cccrsissioa 1516 Ninth Street. Rss. 200 t J James Y. Loyle Dept. of Parks and pecreation P.o. Box 2390 Sacramento,C6 95811.. Sacramento, CA 95814 916 .. 916/3?ti-3222. SpyTidoo 3ideri+t_ Caltrans -Division of ,sereno utics /� (� t',eoree'Hersh. Env. Section public Mister S oQaaissioa � McAllister Street 01120 N street Sacramento, CA 95814 J) San pmocisco, CA 94102 415/557-3398 916/329968-$ llzry Belly C!�ltrans - planning Robert McMahon publid Works Board J1120 N Street CA 95814 O 1025 p Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, 91614 5-SM2 916/3: -7271 Q Dennis o Bgery&htt Dept. of Conservation 1116 Ninth Streets Rosa 1354 0 13et Se6eartx Reclamtion Boaid - 1426 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 SacraaU7 CA. 95814 916/445-2458 2 515J3�-�t172 ODiv. of ld nes and Geology O Robe3j. gay .Co nservation &Des++t. Co®' , 30 van Xesa Anenue Rocco 2011 LI bio, of 011 am Cas . Sea Francisco; G 94102 Laid Resources Protect. :nit 4151557-3688 01020 Robert Tharratt Dept+ of Fish and Game ]416 Ninth Street 0 Peggy 3enkins emeg Solid Taste k hagt Board Ninth Street, Rana 300 Sacramento, Cil 95814 J/// 3acraaiento; Cal 95814. 916j322�9543 915/44..5-1383 y J Rory .trade Dept. of Food and Agriculture 1220 N Street 01801 Ted Fukushiaa 3tate Lags Comaissioa - 13th Street �Ly Sacramento,. CA 95A14 9acrnmeato..CA_ 95814 918/321-1992 91d/322-7813 (/�) Dean Lucke Dept. of Porestry W16 Ninth 1506-L7 O tea Fellow Dept* of baler Resources 1416 Ninth S k 05814 �...✓ Sacramento, CAA 958114, Sacramento.; 916J322 -299A 9161945-7416 .tames Rsidrove Services Dept.,ot Ceaeral 0 1125 Tenth street . SacrarrntosCA 95814 Ha-vcy Cbliias. k1.4 Dept, of Health P Streets Roan 430 Sacrireniio, ,CA 95814 916/322=2303 134 Department -of Transportation Fish and Game'- Regional Offices District Contacts Don Gunstock of Transportation 0 A. Naylor, Regional Manager Department of: Fish and Game 627 �reC ODepartment District 1 Redding, A 96001 16 66 Union Street' Dlreka, CA 95501 916/2461-6274 707/442-5781 micelle Gallagher of Transportation O P. Jenson, Regional manager Department of Fish and Game 1701 Nimbus Read, Suite A ODepartment District 2 Drive Rancho Cordo7z, CA 95670 1657 R verside Redding. CA 96001 916/355-0:x22 916/246--64M Smith Brian J. Smith Department Transportation O `Yountville B. Hunter; Regional Manager ' Department of Fish IM Game Facility., Bldg. C 0 District 3 CA 94599 03 B treet Yountville, 707/944-4460 Mar sville, CA 95901 916/674-4= !Cara Helaaiiry Department of Transportation 4 0no, G. Kokes, Regional tdIMUer Department nt: of Fish and Came 3 East Shah AvenueP.O- ODistrict &-x_3366, Rineon Ahnes FresCA 93726 Fres San Francisco; CA 94119 209/?22-3761 415/557-1887 rorthley Jr., Reg, 1er Fred A xnU 0 Jerry Dem Lauver p=-tment of Transportation District 3 O Department of Fish and Game 245 rest hCA, aq Loa/ CA 90802 S�T tiiguera Street Bcaclti Sal Luis Obispo, CA 93401 213/590-5113 _ 805/549-3114 }Fort Parlier of Transportation '6 0 _Rol! H Ysil Varine Resources Region 245 Test Broadvay ODepartrmeat District Long Beach, CA 90802 .o. x,12618 Fresno, CA 93778 213/590-5155 249/483-4088 Rayne Balleatiae of Transportation Joan Jurancich ODepartwint District g 120 Spring Street 90012 � State `Water Resources Control Board Division of rater Quality Los Angeles, CA P P.O. Box 100,_ 213 620 5335 Sacramento, CA 35�1tl1 Robert Pots 918%322-3413 O Dopar vent of Transportation arest Jerry Jahns Hater Resxu•ces Control Board 2�}S{rict Street Third S.' State Delta San Bernardino, G1 92403 714/383--1629 0 -Omit 2125 19th Sty; Sacr'�ntob CA 9580 � 1 1' 0 Dox 100: Sacra htoo CA 9580 Tont Dayak Dopar, " t of Transportation AI Yang State Water Re3our'cee Control Board O District 9 Sou linin Street' /'"''�) ( bivision of Fater Rights .- Bishop, Cil 94514 �J 901 P Street Sacramento, CA 95814 710/873-8411 916/324-5718` John Gag liano nation Depas•laeiat of transpo Re6:glia/es t�lality Castrol Board I Rat S 0 District,10 . V M6 Region City ,Box Stockton, CA 95201 Jita Cheshir®, i ,. Department ori Transportation District `ii �—ztteet San Diego, CA .92138 " 4237-6755 71.. 139 �} Inter Depart1 emorandum ;.� Co. Supervisor Hilda "eeer To. l, . AUG 3, 1 1964 r. sr+ou Supervisor Jane Dolan � Orov�b, canf=;4 ,for sa SUOJEC• l:Bell-Muir Area Prapa y QATE3 August 24,, 1984 The Bell-Muir area, 456+ acre,A-5 zoning district (bounded NESW y properties, g e. and Hwy. , has been they t ssick Henshaw Ave., . 32) crest of Hay-Cu , n us b ro erties,frontin on Muir Ave.-Bell Rd.# the S-R zoning subject of much debate the last four years. The'area has been zoned A-5 since the mid-6Q's and With a couple o£'ekceptions (Eisenhauer rezone blip on Bell Rd. and Foreman homesite segregation on Rodeo Ave.) there have been no new parcels created smaller than '5-acre in '15 years. However, many smaller than 5-acre parcels were in existence prior to the effective date of the zoning (some created legally, some not) i. focus of the argument has been the 1980 proposed Chico Area General Plan K amendment' process. During the 2+ years debate on that plan, a least 3 proposals fwere set forth and interminaily discusseds 1) place area,in agricultural General Pian (GP) designation and leave zoning as A-5; 2) place area it Agricultural-Residential GP designation and re=zone it to a 1-a;cre minimum zoning; 3) place the area in a $Eudy Area and hire necessary consultants (engineers, planners')-to-deve]ap a drainage and traffic plan and analyze other impacts before changing the zoning. This proposal included pro= 'ding in area pay for this study. owners vi a mechan�.sm to .have property In September.1982" the Board of Supervisors approved ;�1. In the Board initiated a GP amendment that ,would put nec.ember 1983unspecified urban GP designation and some unspec- this area in some un zoning. (Since the Board did not specify, CEQA requires an analysis"of the worst case" possible which could be presumed to be N high density residential:) In 198, a property owner petition representing 270 acres of area Vas presented,y5roposing a GP desig tion of Agricultural-12eside"ritial ai. nd a zoning of 1-acre tnintrium. An EIR has been deemed necessarysisor both imp rtantetoopointnout as some owner etitions. • t ated and property P people hold the erroneous belief. that this area has been ,studied when it hasn't: The Board has several choices' to makes 1 Continue'to argue this matter �writhout bringing clarity or closure. This is really what we've been doing since Septcrk--k 19$2, 2. Allow the Board-initiated amendment to pr6ceed in the usual, manner.. this would moan the Department twill get to it as they can in llgtit of established priorities This is a slow procesb Supe' xvisor Hilda Wheeler August 24$ 1984 page 2 n. Drop the F3aard-initiated amendment and leave area in agri 3. Dro cultural designation and still zoned A-5 4. Allow the property owner proposa l to proceed in the usual when that is done hearings are scheduled. manner. This would mean they write, or hire someone to wrx ep an EIR and re osed for GP and zone change, specify what 5. Def irm the area p P GP designation: and zoning is proposed, develop a plan far handling draiinage and traffic., determine a per parcel charge, and set up the procedure allowed in state J.aw to have property owners reim burse the-county for the cost of the plan and pay hir pro rata ts as they develop.ate fdr xmpravemen A C. Select a consultant to prepare an EIR for the property owner, ire the Board-initiated application to be apple cation, require w�.. and<equire those signing the zoning analyzed as an alteehZz e petition to pay these cos.LE,;, This is what the department recommended and we tabled auly 17. 1 recommend 4�5. Since a drainage plan iz already underway, it, could be said-this proposal has been started, albeit piecemeal. This choice does not answer what to do with the eyist,�ng small lot paying their share of necessary improvements, but it cer�tt .11y� gets rus further along than i; 2 3, 4, or 6 in settling the Bell-PI i.r controversyo ` 2 must say that my first choice would be 43. There is much support from property owners in the area to leave things as they are. I would say that there would be tremendous bupport ,for that from all who travel N. Esplanade and W East Ave, However, S recognize a r strong desire on the part of many property owners (clearly 270 aces I worth) to have the opportunity to divide their property. T recommend 45 for these reasons: 1. Yt is�far to honor the request of property owners for us to consider changing the GP and zoning in the area. 2a It is unfair to burden the taxpayers with the cost of the legally required EIR, planning analysis, etc., necessary to honor this request. 3. Since it has been a long established, appropriate, fiscally n to have development projects conservative'policy`of Butte Couaar reversal of policy their own rays i pay t would seehl a very p and an inappropriate aliacatxon of public resources to sub'sid ize development in this area. �- 4. We; as representatives ofandptratf i cublic nimpacts that ,ri 11 beswers to at least, the drainage l3-la ASSESSOR PARCEL NOMB R ACRES 5 i 042-02--98 ® 042-05-67 4.6 ■ 042-02-35 2 042-06-77 4.8 042-06-76 4.6 042-07-83 _ 10 ,. 042-05-61 5.1 I, r h 'i3`15 APPENDIX 13.4 APPLICABLE ZONING REGULATIONS •' Ii a Sec. 24.72. A-5 (Agricultural) Innes. (A) Uses pet-mitted: (1) 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 agricultural processing plants, (4) Mousing facilities (including mobile homes) to accom- modate only agricultural employees and their families i 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 _located on the prem- ises, provided the followingconditions are conformed tob (a) Ile floor area within the mobile home shall not be less -than five hundred (500) sgdare feet. (b) The ;parcel of land conforms to! section 24-72(C) (Minimum lot area of five (G) acres), or a smaller parcel of 'land lawfully created. (B), Llses regeciring We permits.- The following uses are permitted subject to securing a use permit in each case: (1) Golf courses and country clubs, (2) Ptxblie or quasi-public uses including churches, firehouses, hospitaIS'L and clinics, parka Abd play groundaj schools, public utility bt tidings (3) Segregation of homesites, pursuant to the require- ments of section 24«54,• -44) Segregation of agricultural processing uses, purauant to the requirements of section 2455+ f S) Alining, quarrying, commercial excavation AM Wood processing plants. i 13--16 APPENDIX 13.5 c11100AREA GRFENLINE POLICY VI. CHICO AREA GREENLINE In addition to the other policies of the Butte County General Plan,, g policy � Pp the foZlowi.n oZie �.s applicable to the Chico Area Land .Use Plan A. PURPOSES"' 1 The puYpose.s of thi* policy are a) To define the limits of future urban development which may occur on agricultural lands s- the Chico 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 agricultural/urban conflicts in the Chico Area of B�tte County. e) To establish County cooperation with the City of Chico in land use planning of urban; and agricultural lands located in f) Chico Area of urban development Butte County., p nt limits in 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 policy 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 Butte County iii conformity with 'the afore- ment16ned boundary line and policy~ text. B. FINDTNCiS' The, Board of Supervisors of Butte County, hereby find and determine that: Butte County po,sesses valuable agricultural lands with a� prim and nan-rime soils and one of p f the finest growing climates in the world. b) Agriculture and its related busi. esses are critical to Butte County's economic stability. Inappropriately placed urban development in the Chico Area of Butte County threatens the continued economic viability and cultivation practices of commercial therChico e in AreahofoButte�County is ) present, substantially and southwestern borders. These agricultural lands play a Vi surrounded by agricultural lands on its northwestern westerital: "role in the overall economic natality of Butte County and must be conserved. Count d) The Chico Area of Butte y has experienced the continued conversion of vAl.Udble agricultural lands to urban and suburban development. Unless the Land Use, Element of the Butte County General Plan, as it pertains to the Chico: Area) is amended to include an urban limit line and a clear policy text,.it is l5:kely that the Chico Area of Butte County will continue to experience 'scconversion in the future, with signifi u'� cant, adverse effects inn the viability of agricultural uses in the Chico.kArear u4 ti �k i e) T,t is critically important tk.,the citizens of Butte be bthatethenagrier Greeandnto county that the Chico Area agricultural lands ensure Area to conserve cultural viability of agricultural lands, in the Chico and inappropriate as not. permanently destroyed by premature conversion to non-agricultural uses, the CofcChicoaof Will fj,.The population he GeneraltPlanuestimates continue to grow. The ki 0 an urban area popblatnlgitgewoichrwi116r5su7toinlurbanization individuals by the year in the of up to 1,600 acres in the Chico area. There exist Butte County productive agricultural soils Chico Area of to future urban and suburban development, already committed p orting future 'capable of supp as well as less productive sails suburban development. Such less productive soils urban and deisterly of the urban limit line are generallylocated Unless an urban Limit. line is established by thi s Ptoisctive likely, basedural uponlands established to protect uncommitted in the Chico Area,of Butte County, suburban growth wall historical trends, that future urban ich towards those lands which are already committed to orecapableeofsupporting urban and suburban land use.' p eo le of Butte County that is the p p the desire of re urban land develo anent required to accommodate planned futuIt directed and papulation growth in thepChacc Area shall be UrbanSide accommodated on the of ofhurbanClandedevelopment� Such direction and accommodation of the con- is hereby declared to be an essential compunent the Agricultural Side of servation of agricultural uses on "`It is further the desire of the people the Chico Area Greenline. of Butte County that public officials of the,Cvunty of Butte City of Chico in order cooperate with public 0fficials of the accommodating planned population - olac 's purposes of agricultural lands :an the Chico Are that this p Y P ,pg a growth and of c0nservin are carried out. Nothing herein is intended to relieve the proponents of the Chico Area oat all proper future urban land'developments_in reasonable assessments, fees or charges required in order such urban land and to fund the cost of providing public services to thereof., developments or the residents C. bBB INITIONS For purposes of this policy, the following words' and phrases Y respectively ascribed to thein b this shat] have the meanings section- a) Chaco Area" means that geographic area shown on the of the Butte County Land A art Chico Area Land Use Alan Map, P Use tleipent: Y M 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 Planning Department office located at '7 County Cen-er Drive, Orovill'e, California. C) ""Chico Area Greenline" means the boundary line established by this policy and delineated on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map which line separates urban/suburban land uses from agricultural land 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, 1979,. and as amended from time to time. e) "Agricultural" land use designation and "Agricultural Uses'" mean the "Primary Uses" and the "Secondary Uses" set n the: +t and.:Field Crops" Land use designation ofrthe th �Butte County arLand Use Element as it existed on March 1, 1982, and as amended from timeto time. f) "Agricultural Residential" land use designation means the "Agricultural Residential" land use desligriation 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 use of land l residential land uses). (including agricultural and agricultura h) "Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline" shall refer to lands within the Chico Area which are located westerly r of�the UChic SArea Greenline. `) "+ of the Chico Area Greenline" shall refer to lands within the Chico Area which are located easterly of--the.-Chico-Area Greenline. i D. ESTABLISHMENT OF CHICO AREA GRBENLTNE The General Plan of the County of Butte is hereby amended as follows ChiArea ' Greenline a) There is hereby established theco which shall be located as shown on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map. The Official Chico Area Greenline Map is incorporated into this ;policy by this reference. b) Should a dispute arise or ambiguity appear as to the exact location of the Chico Area Greenline, the following p g location of rules shall be a plied in determ1 in the exact such line 1) The Greenline shall be identified in the Chico Area Land Use Plan with a bold 'dash 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 t extent of a dispute 2) Where the Greenline is inidcated as approximately following streets alleys railroad right-of-way, creek or than lines; the centerline of such street, alley, railroad right-of-way; creek o to be the location r channel lines shall be construed of the Greenline: I3-21 13-22 3) Where the Greenline is indicated as approximately line shall be construed to following a lot line, such lot the Greenline. - be the location of 4) With respect to property that is aiot subdivided, and lot or parcel, the where the Chico Area Greenline bisects a the Greenline, unless the same is indicated by locat"ion of dimensions shown up on the'Official Chico Area Greenline Map, on the Barin sharp be determined by the use of the scale app g Official Chico Area Greenline Map. e the The Chico Area Greenline shallconstitut c) ea reenl neboandary between the ''Urban Side of the Chico. Chico Area Greenline". " gricultural Side aside A land uses may occur on the ) Agricultural Residential only within C ;ricultural Side: of the Chico Area Greenline Ag designated for .Agrcult.ural Residential use on those areas •sco Area Greenline Map. the Official. Ch" of this, as for in subsection (d),e �- e) Except provided Chico section', a11. land use on the Agricultural Side of th • uses Area G;-eenline shall consist solelyL.crogrdesignations as provided by the Orchard and F P Area Greenline Land uses on the Urban Side of the Chico by the policie of the 'Land Use Element and be in shall guided aland use designatiion s contained a the applicable urban 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 remature and inappropriate conversion -to the ag;xicultural lands in the Chico uses are likely to cause ' policies are hereby adopted Area of Butte County, the P County General emefolntvof of the Butte as part of the Land Use Chico Area of Butte County: Plan, applicable to conserve 1) It shall be the policy of Butte County in_Gh of thethe and protect for Agricultural Use'the lands situated on the Agricultural Side e Area that are 3 Chico Area Greenline.to accommodate �) It shall be the policy, of Butte County in the Chico Area. th future urban/suburban growthat occurs lands situated in the 'Urban Side of the of Butte Countyn Chico Are a Gre F. RESERVED G ZONING REGULATION - r oses of this policy$ a) In order to carry out. the pu p the Agt'icultural Side. of the Chico Properties located on Y ed nr rezoned in Area Greenline shall subsequentl be zon folot4s. accordance with this policy as A-5; A-10 ori the 'effective 1) All areas which are zoned ,. a V are deemed consistent with this•rpolicy. Of this p ic, date 2� All areas which are shoun as Agt'icultural Residential ; hereafter be rezoned on the Chico Area Greenline Map shall i 13-22 t a to a consistent zone or, a conditional-ly consistent ;Corte„ as the same were listed as of March 1, 1982, in the Agricultural ! Residential Land Use Designation of the Butte County General Plan. Re-'ronin shall be,accompl.ished by the Butte County Board of Su ery so the �ae p ribedt by law. 3') After the effective dateofethispolicy, except. as spec £ie'd ip this subsection (a) no property' on the Agricultural Side of the .Chico Area Greenline shall be rezoned to an A-2, A-5, or .A-10 zoning district calssifidation. 4) All lands located on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline that, axe not affected b;• the above (a) shall hereafter be zoned or rezoned, consistent with this policy. Such zoning or rezoning shall be, done by the Butte County. Board of Supervisors through the exercise of its discretion and in the manner prescribed by law. b) 'All references to r -2, A-57 A-10, A-20, A-401, and A-160 zoning districts, as well as references 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 desired in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code as the same read on March 1, 1952 and as amended fron time i eontheA om�. c) Any existing legal lot of record I , Agri.. cultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline which, as a result. of the adoption of this policy, does not conform with the min- imum size required by the toning district designation assigned by this policy shall be a nonconforming lot and shall. be entitled to the benefits and the restrict of:nonconformi-na lots as established, by law.,, d) Nothing, contained in this policy shall be deemed to prohibit the application of the agricultural nuisance ordinance (Butte County' Ordinance Nu.� r 2253) or the a;riculVural segregation ordinance (;sectwns 24-S4 and 24�S5 of C'haptie r 24 of thy. Butte County Code),, as the same may nets eXist or hereafter be amended. H. ZONING CONSISTENCY AND TIMING + ■1. the Chico Area Land Use plan establishes land use ■ designations which depict desirable future land use patterns, state law 'requires consistency between genera] plan policies and i'oning. In order to encourage an orderly transition of ndertake to rezonegthose lan&s consistently with,thety land use from the, exist n to the a6tiredi attern, thea Court shall u Chico Area Land Us'e plan. ton, an these areas shall 'be ough time w upgraded thrith a commensuratte'showing of need, adequate services, drainage, etc as provided for,in the Butte y ping in these areas to less than Count Land Use Element. Zo ' the maximum provided for in 'the Plan's designations shall be considered consistent with the Butte CoUnty's General. Plan by virtU6 of policies directed at Orderly Development (page 30), anti Residential Development (p g y be given to those at+eas with infrastructure ca�arat -shall 1342 G AMENDMENT AND REVIEW ' The above Creenline policy may be amended as follows: - The 'ority vote of the Butte County Board of super - 1) By a mai that if any such amendment involves visors' Provided, however, f ban a in the location of the Chico Axea Greenline, that a c g rove such amendmen't only the Board of Supervisors sha11 ape, s of fact, supported aftor the adoption of written finding showing, by substantial evidence in the public record, That the ublic benefits of converting the agricultural a) P outweigh the public benefits land to urban land substantiallytand of continued agricultural production; There are nn other urban or suburadevel:opmentsonably' b} ,.+vailable and suitable for the proposed eriod covered by Z) The ure.enline is established for the p ears: 'ib insure that the land use needs the General Plan, Zo y met, t. of the Greenline of the Chico Area are being the location For shall be reviewed and evaluated every commitsitselfto the Board of Sup specified above. this purpose initiate such a review at the time interval Su on the findings Any changes or amendments shall be made only this policy shell _P Nothing the Board specified in subsection l above etitioning P an individual at any time from p a change f Su erv3.soxs for a general, plan amendment including applicable o P in the location of the e County ofn 'Butte rand 1State th eofpCalifornia laws and policiesofthe Y 3) .Study' Area No • 1 t _. area located in northwest The :area generally known as t1le .Bell ilpac Chico (bounded on the ��rest by tl;c Soutlici,n p�7cIF c fiallraad Alamo Avenue ti� i x��•oc;�.t ;) is dcsign; ted as a :n+nt dy 1',ast:,Aycnue aid Hensht3Y< i=="oitt�e, on the cast by . the south by Bell Road and �u . the and on the not th by - hn -ift adcl.ition to that dshown rea NO. Atop I;o • 1" . This dzSignation shall . Area Land Use Plan flap. This nreEi ~les : PLAN" TO PREPARE THE FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CMiICO AREA GENERAL FLAN AMENDMENT Prepared Icor County of Butte 0 iline 27, 1984 Prepared By Earth Metrics Sncorporat ed 859 Cowan Road Burlingame, California 94010 - ( X415) 697-7103 i N 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS �e et on P8l�. 1 1. INTRODUCTION .....«....,,..........:.......,............... 2 STATEMENT OF WORK ..... ........................... 2-1 ..... ... WORK PRODUCTS_AND 3. SCHEDULE .......................'.....,... 3-`I 4. STAFF RESOURCES ........a.....e...................... Via....'...... •. 4-1 _ .. 5. PREVIOUS RELATED EXPERIENCE : ...........>................ 5-1 ... 6. CORPORATE EXPERIENCE .................. ...........' 6-1 l 3 ,. 1 _ INTHMI T��IOH A plan is presented to prepare the Focused EIR for the Chico Area General Plan Amendment tEIR tPrincipal aarees of Earth Metrics approach and re gths toconduct'this assignment �f FtEDUL•F A , h'C 'Earth Metrics will 11 comnit to performance of tasks Within the time frame set fort2r in Section 3 of this proposal. Earth Metrics has a strong track record of ormpletion of word: within contractual deadlines and has staff available to implement this project. Use of our comprehensive, in house staff will, facilitate adherence to this time schedule. MAXTH7M HTTIMATTDN 'QF FXTSTTNC DATA FROM PR EVI4iJS ST[IDTES. From our own previous Work in. the local area and from review of other existing documents done in nearby study areas,: we plan to build, on the existing data base avail- able ,in conducting the proposed Mork. This technique will 'maximize ou . r time and cost efficiency, MANAGMF T TNTFRnsgCIZ.TNARY IE The Earth Metrics OX Wirt PR i Eck rte_ AG• t _AND management team assigned to the Chico Area General Plan Amendment EIR project has A strong record of technical, budget and schedule performance on a variety of other similar programs in Northern California. we are sensitive to the need for, careful, and .frequent communications with Butte County and other public agencies during the course of the work. Earth ,Metrics full time, in house professional staff encompasses the physical, natural, and social science disciplines, as Well as planning and engineering. Our staff includes traffic engineers, land use planners, design analysts, acoustical scientists, geologistshydrologists, biologists, , Ej energy engineers, and other disciplines. :. RtT Try To FocrtS [kw KFY T : -Because of the critical time schedule, it is imperative that the documentation focus on, major areas identified by the Butte County as important. Emphasis will be on the following issues: drainage, traffic, public services, economic and social impacts, agricultural soils, „land use, and groundwater +�T AN F ptnTCr,t v t*TABI�MTTmATTON Earth Metrics "RP QP PRAl -PTCAI .-�QlI is sensitive to the costs of mitigation measures for traffic and visual im -eostl so i on which is con- ' pacts; We are committed to arrive at the lg�,st y __ siStent with high quality land development projects. Our staff is experienced in producing m "t .gation measures for'teaffic, design issues, and utilities e y d operating Provision Which r�.flect creativit in minimizing both capital an costs.' r t STATEMENT Earth Metrics will perform the following tasks: LAND TISE Describe existing ect area. Describe d usesawithiemohas s upon uses whpch�may have a direct or existing land u p indirect sensitivity to potential development of the Chico area. - Discuss the policies of the Butte County General 'Plan and prior Chico Area Specific Plan document's as they relate to the proposed General Plan Amendment. _ Discuss the existing General Plandesignation, zoning and present use of the Chico area. `Relate the proposed General Plan Amendment to these plans and policies. - Discuss potentialland use impacts of theproposed roposed General Plan Amendment : 'traffic intrusion). east Discuss reasonably uses (e.g., visual, privacy, noise, With regard to other east si reasonably anticipated potential land use impacts.' Discuss the purpose of the proposed General) Plan Amendment and document the impact upon already approved ,development on the east side. - identify any potential growth inducement, if found to be applicable. �nTt.siD AIrIAGE. _, __. Describe the existing setting based upon previously t;ompleted soils - studies in the vicinity. Discuss distribution and classification of soils by agricultural suitability. Su=O-rite applicable soil studies of the U: S. Geological Survey and Soil - Conservation Service. "'e Butte Discuss applicable provisions of, the Seismic Safety Element of the County General Plan. r - Discuss probable construction impacts upon soil's (e.g.) overeoVering) Discuss expected, grading and soil redistribution and on site erosion issue's. Describe applicable soils data and sedimentation related construction effects: Discuss and evaluate' erosion considerations and develop mitigation mea-sures, if needed. Reiate to construotion activity, expected runoff pattgrns, and sedimentation effects upon receiving raater8 applicable to locations oferosiveso the ocatoueal area. Particular lis.emphasis Will be plat ed on doetiment`ng 2-1 - p mitigation measures to minimize effects of erosion and sedimen t Develop ton runoff. deposit due to construction and post construction Develop mitigation measures in terms of erosion prevention measures (such season, and use as hydromulching,avoidance of earthwork during the rainy, time). of rapid growing ground covers to minimize surface exposure - Discuss existing area drainage patterns, including present flood risks. Describe immediate receiving waters and available data on water quality of such receiving waters. - Describe prior investigations of ,hydrology/water quality for this area, including Work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . - Describe existing groundwater 11.1 conditions based upon available data and potential groundwater impacts caused by the project. - Describe impacts of 'the General Plan Amendment, including potential adverse water quality impacts from runoff alteration.; - Discuss likely impacts up na drainage patterns and watercourses resulting This analysis will construction consruction ac.tiv y storm drains. expected level of erosion and sedimentation, include increased runoff, ream 'drainage impacts to the receiving altered water quality, and downstream . waters where storm drains discharge. - Devolop mitigation measures to minimize runoff impacts, including methods of samipervious of early revegetation of exposedearth surfaces, use walkways and other surfaces. - Develop arid: discuss mitigation measures for construction activities, such fill); drainage of future as soil redistribution to g:, grading and deveiopment, and,' drainage discharge points. Mitigation measure the requirement of construction discussion would include considering practices, such as use of grater bar s and other runoff and erosion control methods, and use of appropriate drainage stora$e in on site ponds that Methods of limiting runoff could serve as part ofproject landscaping., through use of semipervious Walkways and parking surfaces Will also be addressed. TIR FFYC ANb CTRC[?LATIQK to 'from prior Eart Metrics traffic studies Summarize existing traffic data stingANS, the area and other rb fable ,sources. .:int r •� Discuss the long term roadway and transit improvements Proposed for the localarea and expected schedule of these improvements. - provide an. analysis of the project impacts. A specific output of the traffic impact of this traffic study will be to quantify the cumulative General plan Amendment for one future year; given one "set -of buildout assumptions (and compare to no Qeneiral P1413 Amehdment). Deterrjine trip generation fact�lrs which are representative, of the proposed uses. 2-2 - Estimate vehicle miles traveled and total number of trip ends attracted to the entire area, and compare to the no General. Plan Amendment alternative., - `Evaluate traffic impacts on key arterials in terms of peak hour. Identify any circulation problems in the sutdy area posed by new trip Plan generation associated with the General ;Amendment. Discuss the potential Vehicular traffic conflicts between automobiles, bicycles and pedestrians. - Evaluate the ability of emergency service vehicles to access the area. _ p mitigation measures, if needed, and other improvements the Geneiral Plan Dovall.eviatetany functional adverse impacts of Amendment. T IITTT TTTR.S Provide e. general inventory of service s presently available to the Chico area. Generally discuss plans for service expansion planned by Butte County or ether public agencies that could affect the Chico area. pment and general expected associated Discuss public services of develo. fire and costs, including sewers, storm drains, water supply, roadways, police protection and other utilities and services. - Discuss temporary:imp.'icts upon private sector construction economy and the completed project. discuss support business, if any> needed to serve Discuss serial, ancts of development including - d recreational . imps. other service3 to availability of school, library, hospital, 'parks and Discuss economic existing residents and to future area residents. and future residents due to growth in demand for impacts upon existing social. sdevioes, .Q 'r��A.8AMMIED SECT -MAS - prepare sections covering expected changes to the einrironment from the. proposed action; irretrievable commitment of resources ,iue to unavoidable► sib ,0icaht impacts implementation of the proposed action; the protect (List only with cross reference to the section of of proposed the Dtn itr Which effects were described); and the relationship of short a' tenni versus long term impacts of the proposed action. 2-3 - T FF RFuS(NIRf'FS Eartb Metrics in house interdisciplinary team encompasses the physical, ' natural, social science, and engineering disciplines and Will provide integrated planning and environmental, analysis for the Chico Area General Plan Amendment E R work in Butte County, The following Earth Metrics staff members e available to participate in the proposed work for the Chico Area General Plan Amendment EzR. EAR�METRrCs PR'INCTP Ty C. MICHAEL HCGAN, Ph. D. ; M.,8., Stanford University; B . y� SPrinceton University. Eighteen years of experience in program management of environmental analysis, sprecializingin transportation e.7al.ysiz of :large industrial and commercial land development projects and roadway development programs in Northern California. Broad background in the tradeoff analysis of air quality, acoustics, traffic, energy and drainage impacts to devise site specific mitigationo assessments • Has served as Project Director for 150 major environment ents in Northern California, including three in .Butte County. Managed U.S. EPA Region IX acoustical analysis 1975-77 in the States of California and Nevada. Has developed and applied oxidant transport models in eight different Western U.S. locations. Has managed acoustical analyses for 43 different. Federal Aid Highway projects in the Western U.S. and has designed noise abatement treatments for over 400linear miles of roadways. Extensive experi- ence with proceduras of the. Regional Water ,Quality Control Board. KAT A. WILSON, AICP, MRCP, Kansas State University; B.A. , Vanderbilt University. %Ms, Wilson has extensive experience in land use eval'uationj visual and design analysis and community planning. She has been involved in the development -of General Plan Elements, local area plans, and redevelopment plans for numerous medium sized cities and is knowledgeable of public agencies and institutional issues in Butte. County, Recent General Plan work has been completed in the Cities of Carmel and Los Altos, She has specific experiience in design, Land use, and site plan analysis of residential and commercial developments and hasreviousl developed dosign guidelines for hillside and p y waterfront developments in several Communities. Ms. Wilson has recently managed EIAs for twenty developments in sensitive settings, including projects. in the Cities of Mill Valley, Monterey, Palo Alto,, Sausalito, and San Mateo. Also ezperieneed in transportation planning projects for the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART] District and for the Santa Clara County` Transportation Agency, CURTIS ALLING M" AUniversity; . r 8 r reams A & M ' B. S , Cornell University. E,xten- sivd land Ubeeftence in pldnni,ng forsA variety of transportati�oiantro Projects, la dove and anal p j , 1 nd developments and resource management "programs with partidd& experience in si.tci planning and.design analysis. Senior project manager at Earth Metrics with respons- ibliity for over 40 major environmental or planning projects in the last four years. Strong background in 'residential density evaluation, review of planned unit developments and oonceptual Mbter planning. Experienced in Wetlands 'and floodplain analyses on the San Francisco Bay peeimOtei• tend Coastal Zone Planning and management. Has managed numerous hillside residdotial projects, pi1'ePlanning g n ' unties. Also experienced in i,i�di8 asdu��lic Agency review of roadway in Novato Alameda and Marin Co p g cy 'widening And other public works i g waste disposal, water resources detielopment, and projects including solid transit facilities. 4w-1 r r T T SRTAEF RES.TENCE�: TRAFFIC. TTY 1I01SF AATI? FN X-- ALLaN G. TIL TON, F. E. , B. S. , Civ14Ut. Engineering, California Polytechnic State . fie EngLnear. kir« Tilton is registered as a Traffic Engineer T.ra University; a in California. He is skilled in many facets of traffic engineering indudirg' signal de ign and timing, intersection and roadway design, channelization, Dada signing ections, level of service calrula- capacity analysis for roadways and intaot dent studies, speed zoning and tions, roadway n and striping, control, bikeway design, and parking l design. His experience in transports tion' planning incVades analysis 'of trip generation, trip distrtbut;lon, traffic` assgrmment, and modal. split. Mr. Tilton also has extensive experience in surveying and has performed inspections for roadway construction p, ojects. Mr `Tilton has performed traffic analyses for numerous local governments on s f land developments including residential,peecommercial, and various type traffic engineer forel.hegGiterofoS2,,nnLuis Obispo. ts He has served previously tr City MAliv PAPINEAU,; B.A., Haverford. College. Skilled in trip generation and distribution analysis, as well as modal split and traffic assignment. He is experienced in all facets of roadway and intersection impact analysis and design, including capacity, levels of service, signal Warrants :and taming, puter ahannelization, and safety. Has developed. several traffic analysis �related models. Skilled in monitoring and prediction. of air duality impacts relate to roadway development and residential land development programs. Permit Applications and procedures of the Federal Aid; Highway �Progrct am cilanual. Mr. Papineau is an expert in trAns- tion and also in computer analysts of dis- poi1tatioz: Mission inventory prepara ti��nts from. roadways. persa2 of, air po11uT D tT,C,I±� URBAN DE.SZ(i.N, AHD ArilxrT�� rTyr f AW AwD�Stl�'I 5 n State University; B. S. , Michigan State STEVE ROTH, M.A. , Program, Michigan land University. fMr. Roth is experienced in current and advanced planning, uta anaurban ban design, and has prior: public sectors 'planning experience. His .specialized areas of exper=tise 'include lAnd use and environmental analysis for large scale engineering and land develoV.,ant prajeots; the development of General Community and Specific Plans; the processing of development permit applications. He is thoroughly familiar Wibdivision Map th the National ETrironmental protgoti`on. Act, the California Environmental Quality roti the Su Act, and various other state Recent and federal statutes. Since joiiin� Earth Metrics, Mr. Rothhas served as Project Manager and Land Use P.lanaer. projects he-•e included ordinance revisions to the City of Comelib zoning rrnental documents submitted to the EPA on the oode; an evaluation of enviro impacts of Outer Continental Shelf oil drilling and production, and project management of th1.e EIAs f'or a 100 million gallon a day drinking Mater treatment plant in Santa Clara A".oUhty JOH2 HOL':FS-CQPPLE B. S.Z;. ; Duke University of Norah Carolina, burham. Mr. vamtinity and : and rise Hodges-Coppl a is experienced in numerous types of co planning analysisi access planning, EIe is skilled in site planning 'a:�aly�'isi site engineAring, Ger-raj Plan ;onsistency .valuation, transportation planning.L and impacts of traffic on land use patterns and neighborhoods. Mr. Hodges im- And °has conducted land use, master plan and General Flan analyses associated 2#-2 with proposed land developments ;in Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Benito Counties, California. These studies have been in both small and medium sized commuz ties. Recent ;projects include the Sausalito Waterfront Use Study, static -I area ihpacts of the Guadalupe. Corridor light rail/expressway EIS in Santa Clara County, the Joiner Ranch Residential. Project in Pla.cer County, attd the Green Hills Senior Citizen'Projeet in Millbrae. GEORGE BALL, M• s., Immaculate Heart College; B. S, , University of California at Santa Barbara. Experienced in public sector cost/benefit analysis for provi- sion of services to residential. and commercial development projects. ,Extensive knowledge of service costs for public agencies within Butte County• It Specific experience'in costing; analysis of"alternati've roadway configurations and fiscal impact analysia of utilities costs associated With residential and commercial development projects. Has managed several studies, including economic analysis of urban services deliveryl regional housing programs, federal ams, and resource systems management. Extensive transportation progr experience with phasing of utilities development to accommodate regional large scale residential development projects. EX-perience in economic analysis of scale industrial projects, IiJSSELL B. LEAVITi, B.A.j Universityof California at Riverside. Broad experience in analysis of socioeconomic, fiscal., environmental and in tend tional i;.paets of transportation, residential, commercial, industrial, public works development projects. Skilled lu projection of jobs/housing demographics, and public fseitor costs and revenues. Knowledge - relationship, ams. Extensive experience able of downtown development and rodevelo}pmeiit 'progr in preparation of all types of environmental documents California Stag UnivsitKyneedy has diained in Chico. _ $aIAN P. KENNEDY, B -A ; reeted the environmental impact assessment and design. yrb development af' comprehensive master plans for recreation areas and pr'a plans ane, has participated in the development of municiPA' ordinances, general and envirotziental impact reports and statements. He has conducted planning and environmental stiidie3 in San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties. ELIZABrTH A. SCHMIDT) M. A: , University of WdahingtOn, Seattle, i3. S. , University of California, Davis. I Ms. Schmidt is i�:+rperieneed in economic anslysis and forecasting, Her expertise includes coat/rovenue analysis. She has prepared various sections of environmental.ass,�ssments and impact reports for iedeveloPment and residential development projects as well as solid haste management Projedtsin California. Ms: Schmidt has conducted extensive aracteristics and prepared comp. ehensive market studies, using ch research on ho n'tAFF FS BOB SIEFKEN, N S., it Vcrsity of Utah; B A-, Monmouth College, ri.iinois. At Earth Metrics fir. Sief leen is primarily responsible iFor geological and hydr`o- logical analysis fora broad ran�,e 9f envirbnrmental assessment projects and land developments. Mr- Siefken is expert.eneed' in preparing teehri cal analysis for Envir-otxnental Lapaat RE►port topics i.Ficludl..ng resource management, soil/ sl'ape stability, erosion and sedimentation, -;Ater quality, runoff generM:ion tzatural Arid urbanized watershedsj, and groundwater uvaila:+llty �' 4-3 P. G. & E. CA Water Service Co. CA State Univ �r 350 Salem Ave. 1platrade- Chico Chico, CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926 Libiary Chico, CA 95,929 Telephone CO. Agricultural Science Ser: Univ. ,/Pacific 460 Rio Lindo Ave. Rt. 3 Box 73 (Kohning) \,.CA State Rm. 120A Chico, CA 95926 Chico Physical Science Chico, CA 95926 - Chico, CA 95929 e Butte Co. Mosquito Abate-. V Planning & Chico Planning 5117 Latkin Rd. Oroville, CA 95965 K Dept. Forestry Works Courier - Oroville P.O. Box 3420 � Chico;. CA 95926•. `Y College Library Rote 1 Box 183-C k Env. Health '/-,Chico Unified ;school Dist. Orovillej CA 95965 Courier - Oroville ,.handl Carried -- 11;63 't. 7th St. Chico CA 95926, Patrick Porgans V LAFCo -� Planning P.O. Box 1.731 Courier - Oroville Fish G Chien, CA 95926 Rt�t3 , Box 551�(Snowden) • >CPublic Works Chico, CR 95926.: o `4 Richard Slavich Courier - OroVille Butte College - hated Caned - "'�/ Alta. Cal Audubon Society �:Ri.mberly)` c/o' Ag. Dept. Rt. 1 Box 183-A -- U.C. Farm Advisor P.O.. Box 3671 Chico, CA 95,926 Oroville, CA 9596.5 Courier - Oroville ./ Si:erra Club ~v Ric Pollution Con. �, i 000 Ch�.co 2 8666 P.O. Box 2012 Courier -- Oroville P.O. Bax CA 95926 Chico, CA 95926Chico, V Butte Coo Sheriff beet. \" William Burch Eco -Anal st s - ille Courier Orov Forest Ranch Comm. P -O. Boxyll8`7 • Association Chico, CA 95927 `X Butte Co. ltibrary P.O. Bo Courier '-� O.roville xanch, CA Cal., Native Plant Society -)5942 , c/o .7 Jo)ce �s t At. 1'Box 3120 CA State Univ: Chico OrovIlle, CA 9565 Anthropology Dept. `4 Fxiendt of the Chico, CA 95925 Foothills P,O, Box 4742 �Chico Area Rec: Dist. Chico, CA 95921 545 Vallombrosa CA State i;niv. Chico „ Chico, CA 95926 +SeogrA-nhy ;sept. Chico, CA 55929 fit riL'lG�' i'�L'rGu l't�'j �� � O 1 87-236 Public h0tring - motion of intent to approve the Gelneral Plan aw ndnent for Joseph Burrel, appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of Donna Hooherry/Joe Burrel General Plan amendment: (item °on which a draft environmental impact report has been prepeired) from. orchard and field crops to agricultural residential on propdrty zoned A--5 (agricultural --five acre parcels) located on both sidr.a of Muir Avsnu4 south of Bell Road, nest of Alamo Avenue, Chico (File 84-85), with the stipulation that a drainage riastriot be formed at t'te initiation of the area property Owners, and that the Bell Muir area be ipcluded in the current traffic study. (from 4/7/87) NOTION: HOVE TO FORMALIZE MOTION OF INTENT AND CERTIFY THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOCUMENTS, TEX Elk, FIND THAT M REQUIREKVVrS OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IVA HAVE BE S COHPLETEBU"T S9.IP MET L'HAT E ATETHAT THE GENERAL PLAN AXENDKENT WILL NOT BE FINAL UVTIL: 1. THAT k DRAINAGE DISTRICT HE FORMED FOP. THE AREA AT THE INITIATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO PROVIDE THE FINANCING FOP. CONSTRUCTION AND NAINT8N NCE OF NECESSARY IMP90VE24E21TS AND 2'. THAT THE AREA BE INCLUDZD IN TBE TRAF FIC° STUDY THAT IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE FOR THE fiORTRWEST CHICO AREA AND THE EAST AVENUE CORRIDOR AND A MEANU'S TO, IKPLEKW THE STUDY; ;AND 3. MT OTHER IMPACTS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE BELL-MUIR'EIR BE ADDk99tKD Its A POLICY' STA'TI�MENT TO BE .A PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN AMDMENT L PLAN 4. kkF�N KtATTHOSE WILLVBE DOM VITH THE OTHER dENtAAt HER ITEMSCERTIFIO IN t'HE EIR 5: DIRECT PUBI►IC WORKS STAFF TO NEST WITH TAN PROPONENTS Ob GET 'WITH SHASTA t1NION DRAINAGE; ASSESMNT D18TRICT OTHER DISTRICTS, DRAM MAPS, AND DEVELOP A PROPOSAL FOO hAINTMU CE IN THE AREA, , M 5 VOTE: 1 .N 3 °Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Motion carried) BUTT$ '.Gt3UNTY .BOARp' OF SUPERV SOkt :HINUU8 - May .50 1,081 81-175 Closed hearing - Joseph Burrell - appeal of the Planning denial of Donna Hooberry/Joe Burrell. General Plan amendment (item Commzss�ons ` m 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 Bel Road, West of Alamo Avenue, Chico (File 84-45) (Report from Supervisors Dolan and Vercruse on possible mitigation measures and implementation procedure. (from 2/10/87); MPLAN ADE XOTION OF INTENT To APPROVE THE GENERAL Motion MADE FOR THE AREA WITH THE STIPULATION TH THINGS. OCCUR: (]) THAT A DRAINAGAT TWO E DISTRICT BE FORMED FOR THE AREA AT THE IttITIATION OF THE PROPERTYOWNERS 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 PARTOF THAT STUDY' AREA AND THAT RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THAT STUDY INCLUDE BELL MUIR AS PART - ? 87-175 OF THEIR CONSIDERATION ERATION AND THAT WOULD BE TO INCLUDE NOT INCLUDE YING THE AREA AS PART OF THE OVERALL BUT ALSO TO } ONLY STUDYING THE AS PART OF THE RESOLUTION FOR WHATEVER THE PRO RATA SHARE MIGHT BE REQUIRED FOR THE IMPROVIZMENTS NEEDED.. ?NOSE TWO THINGS SHOULD BE DONE PRIOR TO THE FINALIZATION OF THE GENERAL PLAN AHENDMENT., SECONDLY, THE99 WERE OTHER CONCERNS RAISED , REGARDING' BATH, INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND AFTER THOSE TWO TgINGS OCCUR AND THE G.P. COULD MOVE FORW; WORLD LIKE TO INCLUDE AS POLICY ARD I DEVELOP LANGUAGE THAT 'FO WHATEVER REZONE MAGHT STAFF R v AT THEREAFTER, CONHECT10NS TOC Q OCCUR A AND RE UEST THAT L WATER B1, REQUIRED WITHIN THAT AREA F`OR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THAT ALSO THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ROAD STRUCTURE; INSIDE IMPROVE,`1ENT5 THAT MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR 90ADTWIDENING AND TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON EAST AVENUE - THE PRO RATA SHARE OF 4 i, M THAT BE RE UIRED. r-ON"19UTION TO FIRE FUND AND HYDRANTS AND THE AMENDMENT TO THL NITRATE ACTION PLAN Olt HOW THE ARE). USE OF SEPTIC TANKS IN THIS AREA WOULD RELATE TO THE NITRATE ACTION PLAN WILL ALSO BE DONE AT THAT TIME; WE REALIZE THE SPHERE OF INFLUENCE THE URBAN BOUN))ARY LYRES WETCtMOOkA CH LDBE ED IF THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDHEjtr OUGHTHE NITRATE A' TIPLAN WOULD HAVE To BE ADDRESSED AT THAT ME BECAUSE IT MOULD BECOME' PART OI' THE CHICO URBAN AREA AND THAT 'THOSE THINGS WOULD BE DEALT WITH FOLLOVIRd THEG:P. AMENDMENT M S_ Vote! 1 AB 2 V 3 Y 4 Y 5 AB (Motion carried) �MOTYON OF INTENT WAS MADE SUBJECT TO A PUBLIC HEARINGS H DATEI:FOR A.�HE)PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MOTION OF NTSNT SET Fog EARIiG MAY 5 ' BUTTE GOUN�,BOARD:,00 S(iPERVi50RS iI?&ES April 'I y 1097 ♦ra, ., .... V k ua ,.. W +saga dr il.rs ..