Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 20 OF 21address this cor^ ert. H.16 Infrastruntture and Cumulative Impacts. The EIR has been revised to H-17 Initiative an�i Mitigation. The comment is noted. : I._. TUTTLE._ AURA, ASSOCIATE_ PLANNER, BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, SUKHARY OF COMMENTSMADE ON 'EIR DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND OTHER CtMMENT;y_MADE DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD, DECEMBER 16, 1986 I.1 Applicability of Greenling Findings. The Greenline policies do not apply to the proposed amendment to the Greenline. The Board of Supervisors can approve 'the amendment with a simple majority vote. Traffic and Drainage Impacts of the Proposed Proiert Versus the Arnold Pacific SholpOing Center. The Board of Supervisors decision on the. Arnold Pacific project is noted, 1.3 sewageRecoramendameth tfor Septic Tanks. The Draft EIR does not recommend o ds. '1.4 Formation of a Larae District and Use of Resident Deputies. The protection y the voters an project s ;impact by pol:[ce n services may not be mitigated because assessment districts may be rejected b d because the recommended mitigation fee would not directly mitigate the project impact. Also, the County Sheriff's Department �rould still be understaffed to servo the county (seepage 5-1 of the Draft EIR). I.5 Bell Muir as Agricultural Land, Traffic and Drainage Need to be Studied, The comment that the Farm Bureau would not defend the Bell Muir property as - agricultural land is -.not complete. The Farm Bureau has decided not to take' a position on 1Ihe agricultural character of the project site or a position on the Project Peace, 1987. The agricultural activities t1hat, occur on the site were quantified in the PrEdr, EIR, page 3.1,-2 (gofer to the responses to Comments 2..35 and 1.36). Traffic impacts are studied in Section 3.2 of the Draft 91R. Di^ainage impacts are discussed in Section3 .3 of the D&Oaft EIR. 1.6nd 1�7 _ a hake Problem. Tb a opinion that there„is not a drainage problem.in the Bell Muir Area is noted. The Draft EIR indicates that minor localiVid ponding may occur in the project of -ea and that drainage studies have been completed to address the projected drainage inadequacies in the project, Vicinity i-, at are expected eeted from future urban development. I.8 Setback and Buiidabie Aree.of. the Lots. The comment that the buildable area of lots adjacent to the new.Greenline`would be significantly reduced is �- noted;. The reduction of buildable area was proposed to form a buffer between agricultural activities and residontial uses. The �".OA foot setback could "not apply if the Green�ine follows the perimeter of the parcels involved in the General Plan Amendment (see Response to Comment 1.21, IiO and 1.58)y I.y-Timing Mechanisms for Mitigation Measures. Refer to Comment 1.62 and the related response which identifies various timing mechanisms. The County mitigation measures. the policy diaeisions related to timing of Board of Supervisors should make 13-6 T►� _ � 1 I^ p Ade uate Draina e.SYstdrath "em VE'rsaiusnaUeds stem"dshoulda6e use e*erthan an The opinion that the term adequate dt g "underground drainage system" is noted. Hciwever, the term "adequate" is not ge is dent upon the � relatedconditions.ratherto storm dthanahydrologicnconditions. (Seeection clear. The decision Response to cos rota_ Stan or urban vers omment I.11.) 111 100 Versus 10 to 20 year 11 Stoi•mwa�srmote reasonableaissnoted. comment that the 10 to 20 year storm standard requirement for infrastructure to accommodate the 100 year storm isThe thoddn bo urban design standards employed by the county (Edell, 19.87)• which the 100 year storm flows are eaccommodated is n site not speci EIR 0nisite detention ied�i The t (holdingmbasins)ends �could, be Used thods to uto�iterease percolation and reduce surface .- flows. I 12 Requirement for Sawer. The ;Draft EIR does not recommend a specific d. sewage treatment methoto Su ort the Proyosed Density Increase. The But I 13 Hydrologic Data vn -- County Health Department and the Nitrate Act oonacren haaceeptableetotp;vpa ling units pe temporary standard of three dweldrologio overload of the soils (Reid, groundwater contamir:aton and by ed Data to suppot ort this finding is available at the coUaty officeb. Data.reletat to a permanent density for development on septic tanks may this time. (Refer to 'Response to: Comment 1.20.) be more effective district rather patrols would a of anassessment because the e than impaetefeestforlpoliceipatrol The Use te the project's.impact, However, the district feasibilityruld -be of assessmentddistrictsais questionable.ause 'Seeas enRespseteatoaClevel i t' i.4..) The impact fee should be considered incremental mpaet� that would be equivaleht to the projects � hat there is not a drainage problem in ` the Btell aMu reareabismnoted. opinion (SeeResponse to CommentI.8 and Respo i-7.) velobm6nt on 1:Q1 w t I.�.6 Normal Requirements for De y k u s drainage infrastructures and sidewalks are no The all ' that sewer hook P reel sizes greater than or equal, to required for developaents 'with pa acres is noted. The proposed Ganeral Plan Amendment would allow 1.00 acre acreel sizes. The County Board off' Supervisors has the responsibility of deteriAining the development standards for the proposed project. Factors other than parcel site will be ennsidered by the Board I.17..Discrfiainatory Zoning• Many factors lead to zoning designations for various considered The existing zoning regulAtios and designations Gould not be.coasidered discr3.miilatory'• More intense ..designations aloftgL East Avent?e reflect higher development potentials along this arterial. I.1 Size of Expanded Pro'eet_Area. The comment is noted: References to the site of the expanded project area have been modified. A li �- himeter .I.19 hr�rietilture Settack� nn es to. Proposed Pro 'dot or A1'uernative Areca:, of - Thi: 200 foot setba ck would not appy' if the Greenling fo.luws tum per.,, rr' �:Min l rSee Response to Comments. reels involved in the General Plan Amendment• the pa The I.8 and 1.41)- Aetion Plan Stud Area and he Nitrate I.2p Bounds of Nitrate ire a rev the limits of the t dment would, r proposed General Plan The existing study qarea is bounded by Alamo Avenue is the existinG western limits along Plan Study. Area Map, northern limit• The development strip area Greater Chico Urban Area , art of the study also pa Henshaw Avenue is the existing went strip portion. of the studofathe to the north to about Mud Creek i State Route 32 of the develop �je'northeastern boundary Therefore, the required mapthen Pacific Railroad track, which the western boundaryrequied m a.s the Souther as defined in this r P area boundary4 Ho Bell Muir property, ical 'limit to the study nitrate contamination,. amendment Mould form a logas an Bel] Muir area is not characterized Concern"e (Reid�,i987) 1987)- B but is characterized as an changes or program amendments would be tgbecauses a Significant policy area map included within the study area boundaries• result of the General Plan Amendment or study endment, the r "Areas of Concern" are already permanent neptie tanks are y er before a decision can be made on the General Plan Am Ho�t�v per acre) requirement Will have If P units p sewage `treatment method must bdweling •. is one dwelling unit selected, a land use density discussed density licants. The The most frequently the project app The Butte to be determined. r nested by This is the density eq not object to this density• per, acre. Control. Board may that all of the data needed Regional Quality artment 'could not make a finding 1987) �• County Health Dep roundwater samples t decision is or is not available at this time (Reid, to make the density residents in the Department of Water Resources indictapded by new g s ecific' The State Pep resentative of those to be tape ort a P. f om new Kelly rep would probably be needed to stno the Water Resource pr��ject area and vicinity :. In additions her � standard for the Bet Muir property ,aeceptabilitY ret the data density stated that the threshold of t s ,and engineers may interp iA be s ultimately Departmen eulogist deci�tion i subjective because various gln any case, the density differently. .(Steel, 1987) Hcwever;p the 'decision should be made in Of Butte County• the Regional Water Quality the responsibility uirements establ.isIied by canourence with any req Control Board (Reid, 1987) stem initially or later ro erty is connected 'co the ea srthat the Proposed density if the Bell Muir.p P it app program tanks have been installedy policy amendments or p g ended after septic_ require a he Brown and Caldwell' would not req Na.trate Action Plan et Sewer Plan would have to be �° changes. Howev , erty to incorporate the Bell Muir Prope land use compatibility iced. it° the riew Greenline follows the 1 ttnmti aced Land Use 'Com atibilt Impact. t the I.2 endmer• , ,Mitigation�r ve included in the proposed General Plan tenses to ineasttres have been rev ated (See Resp boundaries of the Pd 3s acts Would not be mit,;B land use compatibility p ' IAj and I•4b) • l costs 4 Sources Comte I.8' r for.:all C represent 1986 cost..= i.22 Source and Year, osis: 10 of the Draft BIR• for all costa. were p resented in Appendix 1i• 11-8 1.23 Federal Funding Mitigation for Areawide Traffic Impacts is not Adequate. The comment is noted. (See Response to Comment I.,63 which addresses this issue.) Ew, 1.24 Size of Expanded Pro.teet Area. The comment is noted. References to the size of the expanded project area have been modified. p' I.25 Revisions to Figures 1.2-1. 1 o 1-3s 3.1-2..3.1-3 revisions required by this comment reflect boundary-change-q and t,.e . The s for tkxti'anded project area, The figures have been corrected in this report. 1.26-Sewerage-Study Versus the Nitirat'e Action Plan. This wording change has been made in this report. ®® 1.27 How were the Figures in Table 1.2-1 Derived? Footnotes (a) and (b) i describe how the figures in this table were derived. The figures for the - alternative area do not reflectthe graphic error presented in Figure 1.1-3. I.28 os. The typos have been corrected. I.29 Significance of Areawide Traffic Impacts With and Without Mitikation Areawide traffic impacts should be considered significant with and without mitigation and with and without the 'proposed project because funding re P mechanisms have not been created that will g .vgenerate the , enue needed for P lapped im rovemehts. I.30 Clarification of 100-Year Storm Drainage Infrastructure. The comment is noted. The requested clarification has been added to the text, of this document. 1-31 Determination AcUnit ty Based on 'Soil and Groundwater Conditions.Thet�n recommended noted. (See Response to Comment 1.20 which addresses the density issue.) L32 Cost for. Sewer Trunk. Extension. The method for calculating the cost of the sewer extension is ;identified on page 16.10.-6 of the Draft EI$. T'he $3,190,500 cost of the extension was not reduced to an artificially low level. The 15 million dollar sewer extension. would provide for a greater amount of sewage than the system that is disc::ssed in the"Draft M. The $15 million system is the system proposed by Brown and Caldwell. This, system would not serve the project site: If the $15 million extension was constructed and Was redesigned to serve 'the project applicants; then the applicants would. be required to contribute funds, as defined by the .Plan: For purposes of this analysiSy a system that has beep designed to serve the project site would be more representative of future sewer hook up costs than a system that has not been designed to serve the site and has not been determined to be financially feasible with or without the extension required to serve the site. L3 Increase ih School Fees. Application of the nest fee ($1.50/1.0 sgivare foot) would mitigate project impacts related to school capacities by generating approximately $607,500) assuming the average residence provided 1,500 tquu&ee feet of assessable area. (The project applicants have not submitted estimates of average square footage for future residences.) 13.:g olive I, 4 Dollar oer Acre Costs rn Page 2-17• The annual cost for Scenarios 1 and nae 2 are equivalent because the annual drafeeiisgnot expeetedetoechcnge as a result protection fee and load m of the stormwater infrastructure option, the selected road standard or sewage treatment option. I. Size of Ex anded Area 'Versus Percenta'es of 'Butte Count ricultural Land. _ The 430 acre alternative area represents 0.597 percent of 'the total fruit and nut acreage in Butte County. -1. The required change is presented on page 3.1-2- of I'.�6 Change Table 3� this report• IST Minor Amendments, _______�_• added. Add. Notation The notation has been I. Sand I.40 A licabilitr of Greenling Policies. The Greenline policies , 1 to the proposed amendment to the Greealiae. The Board of do not apply vote. approve the amendment with a simple majority Supervisors can proposed project Would 'not amend the zoning Zoning Mae Amendment. The map. Findi'r� s. Refer to Response to Comment I.3g• 1 40 Greenling i.41 _Feasbilit of the 200 Of Greenline Setheh'addressesThe lthe n200pfo fte oot been added to the land use mitigation measure w - the; new Greenline was drawn setback: the use of setbacks could only aPP1Y the perimeters of the` to form a logical urban limit rather than Following -parcels g osed General Plan Amendment sublet to the prop 1.42'_ Lassen AveAvenue nue Extension. The inconsistency Of the noted. Thesextension is Extension with the County Circulation identified in the Chico Area TransporDrttationElRu)y Theat arecommenda jonfuture (full bmade on improvement. (See page 3.2._ of th age 3.2^ _ indented in the Draft. EI�t to- page 7 was ':taken from the CATS and was clarify its source. 4 Exclusion of. .West Lassen and .Hhat enshaw_Avenue' The mmistrequdsScoreeattintthe ithe findings in ' nis paragraph be eofirmed. The parag P Draft EIR• s t 1.44 .Mi ; Elementary School, which is located south are imddo CaY hannel to and east lk of State Route 99« Some "students from the project bicycle rather than ride athe Abus. 1butewouldeprobab y erossnts would not bEastpAvenuetand e cross the Esplanade at E Zindo Channel using Guynn or Cusick to reach West Lindo Avenue, then cross. the Esplanade at signaled ntegeF'sudentstiOns pwithea5signaledecrossing and hatvMangrove Fifth Avenue would provide th These crossings should be safer than the and a crossing under State Route 99• crossings at East/Esplanade and East/Conners due to the lower volume of traffic on the east/w est cross streets of the Esplanade south of,Lindo. Channel. (The crossing at`Connors is affected ,by east/west traffic on East Avenue.) The 'school district is actively ,stheinewashew ite elementbe ary scorosoutheofeEast st f State Route 99• The location of Avenue, but ultimately the school district intends a school site north Avenue, ue within or close to the Bell Muir roperty to serve students in ds to have of East AVLn These new school sites would the northwest portion of Chico (Hensl;ey, 19x7)• significantly reducecrossing:bdstoyelementarelementay studentssandschool ecrossi crossings Therefore, teelimited impact of the project rela and temporary. rtridge Older students would. cross the EsFsent atlesstsign ficantty rsafeaimpact than, - Sohool• Although these students pre younger ommen udents, the potential for conflicts is still important. As stated in the comment, the :cost of an elev�aiin crossnis hoursiof thepdaylcouldemitigateer, the use of a paid crossing guard at cer g on safety measure is pedestrian crossings near Jay Partridge School. applied iri Chico at McManus Elementary Shool��Funds f.or gactivity ` uch a currently app toward this ler budget priorities OdMette, 1987)• because of oth g school have not been directed measure near Jay Partridge Sc z.45 Three Wells have been Tested in the.Area: The comment is noted. Nitrate concentrations fraan eight wells in the project vicinity are presented 1 in Table 3.361. 1446 Dolan Position Statement Relates to Brown and Caldwell Study 'The this report. (See comment is noted. The clarification has been, c�ade in Response to Comment L,73)• I. 7 tom brat Density Standard. The comment that the current standard of three dwelling units per acre on septic systems in the Chico Urban Area is temporary is noted 48 Bell Muir property-is.outsido.a the Brown and Caldwell Plan Area. The comment is rioted. 1;,14 Clarification Related to the Drains"e Plan and the Rolls Anderson and 9 � Rolls, The comment that "The drainage plan will 'be compatible with the R p " . Rolls Anderson, and Rolls plate, but will not su arsede it is noted 1 Sa and 1.51._ School Ordinance and Ree: The comment that a new ordinance and fee have been acrapted is noted= 18-1a 1.52 Zoning Map Amendment. The proposed project. would not amend the zoning map. I3 Sizeof Expanded`Proiect Ar ion of the Expanded Project Area. The discuss Area Alternative has been revised as a'-response to this comment. 154 Mitigation of School Impacts with Fee. The new school 'fee would mitigate protect related impacts (,Hensiey, 1987 )i 1.55 Wording Change Related to Project Area and Expanded Area Alteraative. g g s report. Th., wording ' change e has been .made �n this I.56 Feasibility of Funding Sources for Traffic. This comment makes the following points: the feasibility of .state_ard federal financing is uncertain; programs such as UDAG and EDA have been cut; the others W ll probably be out in the ,future; by policy, benefit assessment districts are only used When the issue is one of public hearth; and -- a redevelopment area is not on the negotiation table with the City of Chico. These comments are reflected in the tent of the revised summary presented in ' this report. I.57 Areas-of ControyersY/issues to.-be-,Resolved. The-comment-indicated that. the following areas of eoatroversy should be added to section 2.3 of the EIR. Adoption of the project as proposed would require amendment to the following "regional plans: the sewerage plan, the storm drainage ;plan, school needs studies; Cciico Urban Area Transportation Plan, Butte County Circulation Element, LAFCo's Spheres of Influence, the Nitrate Action Plan, and the financing plans for all of the above. Approval of the project would constitute a departure from the adopted land use plan and reverse a policy Which took ten years to achieve. The C,^,nE`' to Section 2.3 of this report.) The County Circulation noted.ent is ion Element and the Chico Area Transportation study are inconsistent with or without the proposed project. The project would change the Greefiline and General Plan .and .Use Map designations in the project area, but it would not "reverse" the Greenline policy because the change Was anticipated and because the Greenline policy Woiil:d still exist. l 58 Clarify Mitigation for Land Use .CompatibilitY. The subject mitigation y. The setback limit could only measures have been amended in this documen,,. r apply, if the new Greenline Mere drawn to form a logical urban limit. A notation that implementation of ,performance criteria such as noise control may not be feasible has been added to the revised mitigation measures for land use compatibility. Land use compatibility impacts Would be considered potentially significant With or without the recommended 'mitigation measures. (See Respo"nse to Comment I,41.) tfter Ig Feasibility of Buffer Conce• The, ,omment is noted. (SeebResponse to concept has been modified to apply to the proposed project, Comment I.8, 1.21, 1.41 and 1.58•) 1.60 Com lications and Le al 'Procedures for Ri ht of iia Abandonment. The comment is noted. The cost analysis is a simplication of a very complicated I'llland development scenario for which, onlyeare no locationsrOPO where arealignmentshmay beere no proposed realignments. Th required. It would be inappropriate to include the costs of residential d to indicate that the acquisitions at this time. Jowever, a fosenestimatesote was ade(See Appendix 16.10.) ' projected cost estimates are not worst ca is noted.i I.61 Additional Internal Circulation scrnt culationerecommendations based Hoxever, the requirement to develop the on eve future extension of Eaton Rssdoshouldissuedshoulddbeyevaluatedemore applicants with a more specific plan nning policies comprehensively by the city and county as part of land use pla of co and their effort to make the County' Circulation for the west aide of Chi Element and the Chico Area Transportation Study more consistent. A connection of 'Bell Road and Cussiek yen ue to the Eaton Avenue. Extension may be density increases contemplated for this area* sufficient depending on futures listed on page Refer to first and 'third impact and; related mitigation measure 2-9 of the Draft EIR. The City of Chico and Butte County The feasibility and desire ability should review the Chico Urban Area of the Lassen Avenue Extension Transportation Study's recommendation through the project site would be for extending Lassen Avenue gest to altered by the proposed ;project. State Route 32 (funding for such an f -PS) - - =improvement would. be difficul+. without further density increases or an Rrea- wide funding district). If this proposal is determined to be a long range requirement, Butte County should, require property dedications of right of way prior to development in the areas (NS) The proposRoaed d be tori extension of Eaton p p d land use intensification Aocess to the futureded via Bell. Road. g the extension of would encoura a Inters with Nord, Guynn and shout p Eaton _Road, which, presents the Alamo should not be encouraged unless potential to make Nord, Guynn and additional land use intensification Alamo major north%south, connector's. and. related roadrtay iaprovements occur prior 'these roadways: Lo (PS) extension of (NS) and M..The I.62 Various Timiha Mechanisms for Traffiervisorsashouyld make a policy comment is noted. The County Boa"rd of Sup rovements: im decision related to determtining he appropriate timing roadway p .mechanism for he .recommended traffic and The 1.6� Privete Funds aa-iti"`ation measurers ommendsTthatiprivatet state and comment is noted+ Therat m 8 l3 -.i3 funds be usued to mitigate Areawide traffic impacts. The project's federal incremental impact on this cumulative traffic impact is significant because the ;funding mechanisms needed to provide revenue for ;future improvements have not .been created. I.64 Additional1 east/west Roadways. The comment is noted. The feasibility and.'desirabilitthe y of construered b ofthe roposeden Adensity venue xincrease. The tension hneed Bell Muir area ,would be altered Y proposed for the extension is not the increased density, bait the capacity of other east/west connectors sufficient yunding for the Lassen Avenue Extefact, ould. not be available from developers at the proposed densityhe new cute. A roadway mould etcroadwayage further not justified increases p project and is not 'proposed second east/wes lation plan (see Response to Comment L 61 by a city, or county circu 165 Defined Bike Paths. The Bikeways Plan of the Chico General Plan is -- presented in Figure 3.2-4' of t The oposed�projectawould hot w and ssignificantly e designated Class III Routes. p conflicts between bicycles and vehicles affect the Bikeways Plan.: Generally, can be significant. The 'proposed rojectaft w and responsettoscommentalt44 )yCle hazards. (See page 3•2-16 of d 1.66 Pedestrian Crossin at Jay Partrid a School. See Response to Comment I.44 which addresses the feasibility of ;the subject crossing. ' I.6 Feasibilit of Individual Dra{naQe Solutions. The 'requirement for a storm drainage system to drain the project area is not a'hydrologic requirement. The requirement is based on the county's standards far r development at a certain density. Consultations with county staff have indicated that subsurface storm drainage infrastructure is not, needed to accommodate site s tormwates (Edell., 1986). It should be noted that further density increases (greater th 3ofPuride geoundwoulduinfractureround could infrastructure. Therefore installation edcourage future density increases by removing a development constraint. l 68 Nitrate Contamination and Densis 4 The tandarc7risonotedati(Seeor use of Response to y e density s h'drogeologic data to set th Comment I.20) The solution to the nitrate contamination involves the e planning and in"sta].laiton of sewers in some areas and careful land us development requirements in other locations. I�� Nitrate Action Plan Amendment. The project Response. etoire an Commentm1. amendment to the Nitrate Action Plan study, Area Map, I,ZO the following Related SPwer Trunk Nxtension Conditions ui=nts are noted: The city may not pe ant. permit a new trunk ;lige to the pl . If the p p er0 then it would have to be with the proPert, is to sew c6noureehce of the City of Chico; in aocorda,nee with the Brown and Caldwell Pl an A rPERSONS AND PUBLICATIONS CONSULPE 14, , REFERENCES : r D Bird, Michael, Engineer, Rolls, Anderson & Rolls, telephone communication 19 6 Brooks, Walt, Sheriff -Coroner, Butte County Sheriffs Office, telephone communication (1986). Brown, ,Star, Senior Planner, Butte County Planning Department, telephone ' communication (1986) Butte, County of, Circulation Element of the General Plan (1984)• AButte, County of, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Number -1750-(1984,). Uutte,,County of, §nvronmental Review Guidelines (1984) 1 Butte, County of,'Housin& Element of the General Plan (1984). Butte, County of, and City of Chico, Nitrate Action Plan, Greater Chico Urban Area (1985) Butte, County of, Safety Element of the ,General Plan (1977)• 1 Butte, County of, 'Seismic Safety Element of the General Plan 0977)i Butte, County of, Planning Department, Revised Draft Environmental 'Impact ert--,for the. -:Chico Area Land UseAmendment to the Butte County Rep - General. Plan (1982). ACalarco,, Nino, Director of Health Education, Butte County Public Health, telephone. communication (1986)• ACalifornia, State of; Department of Transportation, 8th Progress Report on Trip Suds Generation.Rese:areh Counts (1973)• ACalifornia, State of, Department of Water Resources, Ground Water. Basins.. in. California (1980). California, State of, Departmeht of Water Resourbes, Study of Nitrates 3n the A' Ground Water 'of the Chico Area, Buute Cotthty (1.984)+ Chico, City of, Chico General Plan (1985) hico City of, En"y 3.r�o'rm:(�,„:�al-_Review Guidelines (1985) C: ' Chico, ,City of, title 18. 1511bdi Li9Am ns (1985) Chico; City of, Title 19j Land Use._e gji(1985) berridk, William, Trahsportatioh Coordinatory City of Chico$ telephohe oommunicatibn '(1985') Earth Metrics Incorporated; Draft. and Final EnVirrin� eratNt Impact Report for the Pro osed Central Chico- Red&.8lopment:Pra.eoC (1905) ' i4"1 cs Il�coroz`ated, 'Draft Environmental Impact. RmtAf reementN(1985) Earth Metti _Develoent VallePlaza Area Annexation Prezone # 1tenC jneer, But ent, �. Associate Civil Eng. ounty ;Public works Departm Edell, Stuart, p ications (1985 and 1986). � ersonal �.►c3'telephone common. tele hone strict Manager, California Water Services Company, p Grant., Gene, D i . communication (1.486)., Grey, Captain, Butte County Sheriff's Department, telephone communication (1986). Hawkins, John; Division Chief; Butte County Fire Department, telephone communication (1986). ensle ssistant Superintendent/Administrative Services, Qhico Unified H Y; Stan, A School: .'.District,. 'telephone communication 09.86 and, 1987)• Hughes, Jerry,, Chico Area.Recreation and Park District, telephone 1 communication X1986). Chico'Urban_Area `Transportation Stuff" (19$2) JiK � Associates, " - Lando, Tom, Pldnning Director; Chico Planning Department, personal and telephone communication (1986)• Unified School District, Mathews; Ben;.Director of"Elementary Education, Chico telephone communication (1986). ■F.on, Engineer, Butte County, telephone uommunication ■. McElroy, P Nunez, Bob, DiIrector of Public works, City of Chico p,.olic Works, telephone communications (1986). Palmeri; Edwin, Associate Planner, City Of Woo, telephone and personal communisation (1986): ne Peace, John; Pxecutilre D3rectos•, Butte County Farm Bureau, tel'epho + commtu�ication c,9a7) Elwin Assistant' Design Engineer, Butte County, Public 'Work} telephone Pierce, r ian Butte County Department of Environmental communication (1980 Reid, Tom; Supervising Sanitor , Health, telephone communication (1986 and 1987)• s Anderson and Ro1 m Drainage_ Study: moll , ls, Butte Count :North Chico Area Stor (1985)• Rolls, Anderson and Rolis, rnunty of Butte Feas�ty Study for Sanita Sewer Service to the.Nortb Chieb Area (1984) 861ler , Cliff; planning Director, City of Chico, telephone communication (i966). „v 16_�.. APPENDICES 16;1 Initial Study 1b, P f Prepa_�ation Letters in es case to Notice o R 16:3 List of Parcels Involved in the General PlanAmendment 16.4 Applicable Zoning Regulations (A-5, SR -1) i6.5 Chico Area Ore-ZLIine Policy 16.6 Minor Revisions to Figure 3.1-1, General Plan Land Use Map 16;9 Population Data in 'Butte County 16.8 Demographic Data in.Butte County 16.9 Reasanabl r Anticipated Future Projects in the Area 1600 Methodologies and Assumptions for Estimating the Costs of Recommended MiLigat`ion 160i Memo from Supervisor Supervisors an Planoutlining f*.aaiDolan Implementation g for the�itrate Aetion i 16.12 Discussion of Public Improvement Financing Methods 1 1 t rr nvl{;Nnl x { APPENDIX 1:6.1 Zh'ITIAL S ; ' COUNTY' Or BUTTE F.NUIRONfitENTAL CHECKLIST `FORM (to a complete y. Lea Agencyl 84-02=27-03 L0 n 84-01-13702 Ai'' r Various bAC>` U Supervisors B.I1.xzelLand4� roponent4�2x1'-�� 1. Name of p iicable) Address of proponent and (if app ro anent Boat_ d of Stiri�ryiso�s� ...�. htooberry B e i 25 Count Center Drive 2.777 Alamo/2947 ;fiord Ave. Oroville, GA 95926 CA 95965 Chico, ~-y--�'-"rp1 .._. Praj�yct ccst'riptton, ,enernl-an- Amendment' Yi S MA) N1, NO { 1 hiAN11ATOpl Flhl)IACS` OF btt�Nl1 1-.C�+NCI? _- n, l)acs thtl protclt hut'e the p otanttal to degrade the quality educe of the �ynfishnornwildllifeaspeciellts,ially rcause a the habitat of a Population or W1 to drop below` self- fish or' tirildtfc { i' plant or sustaining lel*els, threaten to eliminate a mastrict the animal community, reduce the number', or re range of a rare ar endangered 'plant or animal or portant ehistory? ynmplof tile t: jo eliminate r per adG ofCalifornma histar; o� pre h Docs tits project hate the Itottntial to aGttici+c sht�rt-term benefits to �shart hrtarmtof i:mpactt,ontthe* environmental foals? C environment is one which occurs term relacts will brief period of time whi9.e long- r X } --, " cnciure :into the f•utlirc.y 'which are indi'�fidU- L . [loes the profect have impacts ally limited;, bucconutwolor�morenseparateeresources project may impact where the impact on each rtsoutee is relatireli" ' small, but where he effect of the total of those - )npacts ori the etvi ronment is significant.)' 'Project have environmental effects which ci Docs the p 1 will catise substantia,l�*acveindireitl�? on human W beings, either or .1_IrFt1{1tiA.I`it1N (Ta be completed h Itl5' the Lead Agi nt y`I on, the basis of this initial evaluation NOT ha��e a signiC'itant effect I /WL. find the prop osed pro i ect. C01{LD Tn aced . " t+n the- ettt+iYOnmert, and a NIt,ATI��t: bECLAitA'TION will be p p -o osed project could have a signifi if /til: rind that dlthou h th - p t fiuR 5 described on ' ant ,;effect on the,environment ITIGATIOj� rt:A be s gttribedn{tt c effect in this C. because t e , the•,�ttd hed sheet: had^e been adddd toiolee't: CtrCI.AUTION will he prepared, l/lti'1: find the plop osed project MAY Have a sil;nificant effect on ,` arir�ettt, anti. an 1<NV11tON1�irNTAI. lrlpACT p} PORT is required' the em) r r,OIINvpy 0� WOTTI. , M AN"N I Nr n PARTMIFN i 19 8.4 -.. �. ._. ----- La'ur utile Assistant planner` l2t+t, i,+Wc+tl, Itts 16+ 01-1 'der. NVROIMnCT5.� +, " be+' answers a require d NMENTAL . eS and may y IV'' I anaticns,- o.. ,.� _ attached sheet(s)YES MAYBE ) ANO on EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant' or in changes in 1, a '-[instable earth conditions geologic substructures? compaction or displacements, io, b; Disruptns of th;e soil? overcovering • p rah cr ground surface to og P Y C. Change in relief featurles? or modification of any Destruction, covering .,. or physical features? eolca c. i,,1 wind water erosion of soils, r e, Increase -or either or or off-site? ' , beach deposition or erosion f Changes in deposition ;ands, or changes in siltatirhe channel of modify or erositn which ,may the bed o`the ocean or . a river or stream or, lake? any bay, inlet oro vroductive soils agriculturally g, Loss of prime outside designated urbaroaerty?to geologic p h. Exposure of people or p landslides, mud- hazards such as earthquakes, - azards . azarslided g round failure or similar zn subs tantal Will the proposal result of ambient 2; ALR. deterioration a, Air emissions or I smoke ' air qualty? objectionable odor, b, The creation of or fumes? :e;nent, moisture, or Alteration ofoTiany°,hinge in climate, c, c temperature; ., locally or regionally. result in substantial:: 3, WATER. Will in currents, proposal or the course or a;'Changes in in either direction of water movements marine or fresh watexs? drainage patterns, in absorption rates, b, Changes or the rate and amount of surfaceerimpt ve- surface 'drainag channel C, Need for off-site vegetation removal; merits; including ---- ization or cul the courseloriflow of flood d: Alterations to .--. waters?. the amount of surface Water in any e, Change jr, rater body» . � by face waters f, Discharge into sur ualtln including. alteration of surface water limited to eratu reg dissolved --- `' ?emp but not ozygen or turbidity the direction or rate of flaw ag, Alteration of of ground _waters? of`gound waters, h; Change in the q uantity either through direct additions of with' tion of an int erceons? dral'alr,bor through ' cuts or exca ati aq of wa"ter , Reduction in the amount i+ for ublc water supplies? to Water 1 a�railu,re ' Exposure. o f People or prop o as flooding? related hazards such ,, a ' F LIFE. 1 1 the propos, al result in � antial• 4. PLANT a.' C ng�� in the diversity of species-, or nu��ber a of any species of plants (including trees, and aquatic; plants)? �' q P .� shrubs g rass, .sops., - b. Reduction of the numbers of an)P unique, caro or endangered species of plants? �— Introduction of new species of plants into an co- arca, or in a bSrrier to the normal .eplenish- merit o: existing; spccies7 d. Reduction in acreage of any agricUatural crap? Rv -- 5 LIFE. 1�ill the proposal re �ult in substantial: les, numbers C.na g in he diversity o E spec or of animals (birds, laid animals of any species icluding reptiles, fish and shell fish, berithic organisms orinsects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique,•rare ior -endangered species of. animals? c, introduction of new species of animals'' into in a barrier to the migration an area, or result or mo�.ement of animals? d, `oration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? vor ISE, 1�'i.11 the proposal result in substantial-. levels? - a-. Increases in e;,cisting noise b, EXposure of people to se ere 'noise levels? -- 1 7. L"IGHTANfD GLARE. 1Vi11 the proposal produce si.gnlITlEant light and glare? 3 . LAN T 1tii11 the proposal result in a L'11� rJ P he pr-eserrt or planned stGS�. antial alteralt�on oft su �p land use of an area. p`- 5 . NATUR.At RESOURCES: 1Vill the proposal result in i substantial; i'nc'rease in the rate of use of any natural - re ' satixces? b. I?epletion of any non-renewable natural resources? l0 A18111 -OF UPSET i IVill the proposal involve a. A r�s;roT ;explosion or the release of ha�axd- bus substances (including, but not limited to, in the pesticides, chemicals or radxat�on) °'ll, P nditions? toruse t co an acciden p . event of ., with an emergency b. Possible interference evacuation plan'? response plan or emergency 11: vthe pYo-11tottlAt POPUIATI0Nde1'yt�;orrcwiipate of thehsm an d1tSlbtltf0 t ropl�la�ion' , lam. I OUSItir� Will the proposal affect e cisti'ng housin��, housing'? tional ho �►- +- additional ocreate a domanl Co T' ,� r• 16x14 3x5 MAYB13, -NQ RECREATION 0.11 the proposal result in,,,LI impact upon the ual ality or quantity of existing recreational upontue 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES'. H. 'Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the ''dest'ruction of a p-rehistori.c or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse Phys=.al er aesthetic effects to a p;rellistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred 'uses within the potont:iftl impact area? --; -D[SCUSSIO:IV OF E;fVI`ROLtT1NTAL EVALUATION AP Various January 1984 the Board of Supervisors initiated a General Plan Amendment, from Orchard and Field Crops to "urban" for, a 400 acre or more arca 'known as Bell.-Muir Bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the test, Bast Ave, and Henshaw to the south, Alamo Ave, to the east, and Bell and Muir Avenues to the north. This area. has long been planted in orchards. In mid-Pobrunry 1984, residents of the Bell-Muir area inde- pondently applied for a General Plan Amendment from Orchard and Field Crops to Agricultural-Residontal, 1 acre minimums. `i'11e -location of this General- Plan Amendment is essentially the same, but the boundaries are irregular, encompassing more or less 270 acres. The project is located on Class I and II soils: Vina Loam, Vina Fine Sandy Loam, and Farwell Loam. These soils are cap- Able of supporting a wide variety of agricultur4t1. crops. Many of the parcels are planted in orchards .. 1 rorty acres is the: preferred minimum parcel size, h0ti3ever, as sm,111 as 10 acres can be vi4bly f�.ltmed and provide a sec- ondary income:* 2 f,�umjng.,,l acre minimum parcels from more or less 253 to more or 4ess 512 S lots could be created, and more or less 7.61. 322 new homesites developed. Telephone interview-'Bi 11 Olsen 5%i%84 1 Farm Advisor- Walnuts : 3,400 lb/ac 'x 40 at x $i40/lb $54p400 = (1,000 at. costs x 40 = 540, 000) net $14,400 moderate indome (county average ncome). 2 Private application. 3 Board Applit ation . 4 Build out is 2 units 'pe"r parcel: Aspartol sites decrease economics of scale Work to propor- tionally increase farming costs -5� 16.1-5' ted or boundary line modifications are variances arE gran if �these figures could be 5o higher. , approved, _ - More specifically-, equals: 261-522 hom252tes eq 626-1, persons 115-?29 school children 6,260-12,520 daily vehicle trips 5 acres) 1 new community park (more or less .6-1.2 new police officers runoff 432 cfs (se e Chico rojectadictatesUse lthat an The very size and intensity of the project li;nen-c to the Chico L every tar Impact Report (Eli:) or a supp Area Land Use Plan EIR be prepared. 1982 a on the Chico .Area Land Use Plan, In n EIR was prepaxed ro ernes. p whish included these Ps and other ba Y t anch soil ' back ground. info matron which Regional settng,to this project are sufficiently_co�ered, would also apply should be referenced. does not discuss circulation ,,vl�," `7 the 'Bell-Muir" area The SIR, d zone of ,A-5 or 11 3,G tjt'uj'i a specific ) and recommends a holding (Page 122)' plan is prepared to discuss circulation and .sst�aent Ds- Bell-Muir, outside of the Shasta Union Drainage Asst. ` � � � ani! ems- trict, has been ifsentifiecl as lackingdrainage facilities tTict, es localized flooding, (Page 85 t of Bell F;uir would be contra:xy to the Land Use Element Developmen development in flood prone or areas otherwise policy of restricting lacking drainage improvements. It was, further recommended that a dstrct(sj be formed to Rind all public improvements. zatian To'ect is located outside of the high nitrate area, Whlle this g 7 continued urbani the: Division of Environmental health states water deterlora. on , septic tanks iail l , undotilbtedly increaseground, tion, (Memo; of rIarc}i 20, 1,984 But County that r The Chico Unified School District pnoticed the district; continued approval of developongt,projects ated si nifl- absent a funding' mechanism, constittates antmltig g .. cant impact the Chico Area Land Use )rI R This Elft may be prepared referencing , list Mems on, and focus on cheek for background �.1lformf soih erosion l oats covering surface and ground over inar edimentataon, � • wateraquality' eased s x;1,12'. land u:�e issneansuchas; ,. �ustifcatio d need for General Plan Amendment roved development in the t on the already a Pp:. vestmepublic impac east including the eittens'lve innt in improvements. APPS bTX 15 2 Letters in Response to gotice of Preparation PLANNING OFFICE buftCo. ,P{WWkCMM S -- F t a 24 198 ,7^O k4,4... trr�NH� rITYcHCHICO P•.; '8rt• 34:'a Orav Cr �c Gk 959:, , Ca�fort� February Y 23 1984 W- AIS: 41,59 q�,., Butte County Plasnning Department 25 County Center Drive Oroville, CA. 95965 g d Bell-Muir General Plan RR; Midway Orchard; Heidn er/Sw..-e et ►recta r, an Amendments The City of Chico finds that theF P P xo osed `rojects noted above are in direct conflict with the 1980 Compromise Plan and. urban growth policies established after ' between the City and County. ns In our opinion, each of the above referenced projects may generate significant In our opinion, impactb. An independent consultant should be retained to 'prepare a kraft EnVironmental Impact Report addressing the following items for each project area: 1.:. The justification and need for the General. Plan amendments The impact on the already approved development in the east including the extensive investment in public improvements ' as a result of development in agricultural areas'West of the adopted Gree'nline. ` In,,acts on public services and public improvements in-1Uding, but not limited to .fully improved streets, storm drainage, schools, parks, police and fire protection Project impacts,n shallow lo increases in water systems; and in particul ,_ potential nitrate levels 'within. each project area.: Traffic generation and circulation problems as a result of full buildout in the project area. The City Would like to be kept informed of any action to be taken on the above pi �Ojettsl and it looking forward to reviewing and Commenting on environmehtal documents prepared for the p"roposed projects Sincerely; tai it R. Palmeri Assistant, planner tAP1pb A-13C- Cnter _ •• � ,,. departments :Memorandum 0 &d% co. mrw," cam, to. Supervisor Hilda ;rheeler AUG 1 1 98 [RCM' Supervisor Jane Dolan ®ro411ewf=Zk sueseG Proposal for Bell-Muir Area, IDATE: August 24, 1989 The Be11-Muir area, 456+ acre,A-5 zoning district (bounded NESW by properties fronting on Muir Ave.-Bell Rd., the S-R zoning just west o:€ Bay-Cussick,, Henshaw Ave„ and Hwy. 32)j, has been the subject of Much debate the last four years. area has been zoned -A-5 since the m�.d-60's and with a cou 1e A , the p a exceptions ltisenhauer rezone blip on Bt,+1t� Rd. and Foreman homesite segregation an Rodeo Ave.) there h1ve been no new parcels ed mailer than 5-acre in 15 years. ;However, many smaller creats than ed me parcels Were in existence prior to the effective date of the zoning (some created legally, some nat). The focus of the argument has been the 1980 proposed Chico Area General Plan p During the 2+ years debate on that plan, at amendment roceIs least 3 proposals rre;re set forth and interminally cii5�:ussecl 1) place area n agricultural General Plan (GP) designation and 'i leave zoning as A-5, 2) place area in Agricultural-Residential GP designation and re-zone it tO a 1-acre mi zoning; 3) place the area in a study Area and hire necessary consultants (engineers, planners) to develop a drainage and traffic plan and ahalyza other r,►pacts before changing the zoning. This. proposal included pro ` P p `y sin area' pay for this 1 vidin a mechanism to have ro er.- owner study. in September 1.982; the Board of Supervisors approved 1. In 983, the Board � in t' Ud a- GP amendment that ,would put December 1 this area in some unspecified urban GP designation and some unspec- ified zoning. (Since the Board did not specifyr CEQAL requires an analysis of the "worst case" possible Vhich could be presumed to he y high density residential-) in 1984, a property Owner petition rppiesentirig 270 acres of area eras pr esented,proposing a GP desig- nation of Agricultural-Residential and a zoning of 1-acre minimum. An KIR has been deemed necessary. 0- for both the Board-initiated and property owner petitions. This is important to point out as some pe6pl.e hold the erroneous belief that this area has leen studied when it hasn't. The B oard has several Ch ices to'ma", I. ConLInue to argue this matter without bringing clarity at g p einber y 1982. zi what we ve been doing s�.nce Se clusur�. This is rea' _ . Allotr the Boatd- in tiated 'atnenftent to proceed in the usual rnannr:e. This �otild mE`an the De, artinenL will 'get to it as they .:can in logit of established priorities; This is a slog Y r _ �.z-5 supervisor Hilda Wheeler August 24, 198,4 page 2 tiated amendment and leave area in agri- 3 Drop the Boa rd-nz - 1 cultural designation and still z7.oned A=5• the property owner`. proposal to proceed ire someonen the utoawrite# 4. Allow write, manner. This -would mead they an EIR and when that is done hearings are scheduled. what 5 ' proposed fos �nv roposeddevelop a plan for handling Definetheand zoning r GP designation per reel charge, and set up e and traffic, determine a P Pa ro rt owners zeim- drainag a allowed in state law to have Property y ;r Yo rata the pr° for the cost of the plan, and pay the-_, F�- couny burse the develop, share for improvements ;as they llc`�tierty owner Select a consultant to prepare an EIR for the property to be uire the Board -le uireethose s the zoning tia application, r� igning analyzed as an alternative and r,q ,what the department - petition to pay these costs. This �s recommended and we tabled July 17• de:rway g plan is already � meal, I recommend #5;6 Since a dras it ma e P albeit piece has been e.tondstarted, existingtsmall lot could be said this proposal but it cer inlylgets' a ing of an_, P y of necessary improvements, the $ell -Muir This choice does n e 9, or 6 in settling pus further along than 1, 2 3, their share " There ort.: re .is much sups 2 must say that my first choice would be s as they arei from property owners in the area to leave th ort :for that from all that there would be tremendous 9UPP would say - East Ave. 80wever, I recognize a who travel N.. Esplanade and W,:East ro erty owners (clearly 270 acres desire on the part of many p P rt strong ortun"I to divide their ProPe y worth) to have the PPP I recommend :*5 far these reasons: of property owners for us to Y ' chan ing the hGPraruest' , ng in the Area - consider zone consider 3 � It. is fay. � the cost of the e*. s with 24 It is unfair to burden lahnningpanalyssj etc., necessary to legally required EIR, p 'honor this request• established, appropriate, fsca�.ly n along to have dove opznent projects 3 Since it has bee; of ButtLl County olio conservative policy aar reversal of Policy pay their o�an way, it would seem a very P ro riate allocation of 'public resotzrCes to subsid- ize an inapp P and An in this area public -1 mint seek answers Sentatives of the p b 4: We the drainag c IMp e as repro � and traffi acts that tai to, at least, ' 84-583 i7scussion on choosing consultant for preparation of an environmental to ResvI ion 7,5-57, (2605) i•t rt for the Bell-Muir area pursuant impact report , as amended. 6 - Motion: REAFFIRM THE ):ACT THAT THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DIRRCTION THAT BE CCVSID:wRED FOR CONTINUED .STUDY AND THE BELL-MUIR AREA CONSIDERATION OF A'GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AND REZONE AND ALSO THAT THE ENVIRO"J24TAL IMPACT STUDY BE CONDUCTED IN-HOUSE BY STAFF, M S 5 Vote: Z 2 4 I:JCLUD E THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO Go Af7_AD A14D 'c 8A-583 yotion p-mended: TO WITH EARTH METRICS TO DO THE EIA FOR ,HE BELL- (Cont' d) COi+^•R.l'CT iwn STUDY P-R&A. M S 3 4 5 vote: 1 2 ��. SUPzRVISOl'1S DOLKN AND WHEELER To V* ORrt TOGETHER10 TO D..�IAP (MOTION TABLED• � x PLE l+r1fiE RECC':`=' %1 ,Dr+TIOIS Ah W14AT IS BEST IN ORDER FOR. PEO 1 ACRE PARCELS.) 1 r r r - ; my 17, soaro a.• sur�eR� rso;�s ��i�u'�Fs J _ _ GEORGE DEUKMEAAN, Govvmor STATE OF GAIL "iA-TRANSPORTATION AO`." ^� _ -- DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P.O; BOX 911, MARYSAUE 95901 t _ Cc, i �aTti;,g Comm. y DISTRICT 3 C .fr Telephone ( g16) 741 r. � C:atuu,n• March :2, 1984 03-Tht-32/39 Chino Area Greenline, GPA Mr. Ric;c Rodriquez Butte County PlanningDepartTeen 7Cou my Center Drive., orovill.e, CA 95,965-1 Dear Mr . Rodr. iqun :; CaltrEms, District 3, has reviewed the general p.Lan waendmen t applications�£or three separate proms rties on the western e•3ge of the Chico urban area. The amendments w;auld 91.1" urbanizat, tion of proper currently in air:icultiiral uses: ire extent of future circuli pion imparts as a re tilt of t�tese lend use cYian�;es ca�11a. vary �;rentl,}r to �t.ry ty� of proposed develo�ent. In con: idr ring the C��z~ti, T:i1c7i11ri tuT�irc?, 3 trtlrot.-cn. tr�.£fic 3, to to Uate epplicahon3 t '�t� y , Routes 32 and T, and neodr:i ro'�d�•rt;�T m� t_i Vatlon Tllea�ttres. t Cal t. ��ns ,�r rr}r a.te, beim; inform.4 of l�znc ", ;o'ctln n, in tE�c rrxcinxtyr of State in t►"%'�,� ti+ V0requc:,t the opporturAty t.o reg%ic;�; .,,ub-egor,,nt environmental b z ' f ` r _ e proposals for L-Ach of th1 ie proP'gr t' - s�,ude.� an��or ap c�.zc de�lor�a..nt prax.os� S .R r - 1}�e.e cottimnnts, please contact Jeannie U3 Or at If oii hn.4 e ani o the above n ,ddressuor telephone (916), 7d,1-4493 •. Sincerel4 tt. Ili 10F�t5r District Director of xrahsportmtion t Chi.ei~ TiTrkxran.�.�:n t�7, ' Pratt l� 4 . BUTTE C OUtITY FIRE.: DEPgRTMEN fiRE PRGUTiON STANDARDS REMW Agri La � $4-O1-13-02 c OPMENT NAME `EIR No. 84s-37 — � DEVELOPMENT Fast Avenue area Ohico DATE 2 / 21 / 84 Calif. Department of Forestry TbiIs project must meet the requirements in the Uniform Butte County Fere Department d Code amended to Butte; 'County standards, Cooperative Aire protection' Building ,. In accordance with Section 13,00 (Fire Standards) of the RICHARQ'D.TILIER Improvement Standards, the water requirements for this (Applicable standards are checked); parcel/Project are acChloi t( ) 13 O1-1 Requirement Class 1, A water' apply for fire protection will not be required. `1 ( ) 113L.01_2 Requirement Class 2, A pressurized water wricx (6161 system with adequate numbers of hydrants , pre- ferred, but if this is not fe,lsi4le, the: following - option xiiI satisfy the fire -4r.,. drtment: require ment for water. ( ) a, Water storage ;tanto with a capacity Of 10,000 gallons or more, equipped with direct all Heather access and fire department connection (S-29); ( ) b. In ground swir.,hing pools equipped with a drafting; connection or drafting dGce55t ors ( l; c.` A dry stondpipe system plumted to a reliable Wtcr source+ Such standpipe system will not exceed 1,000 feet in 1 1en9th, There must be at least 10,000 gallons of water available and strategically located for each 10 dwellings, or portions then 44amp1e; 11 dweltinn,, :__,_ur 1d.regtJzre-two separated soets), Provisions must be made to insure that the? water stored is always available and acctssible for use under all weather conditio ( ) omm ent Claws 3. A press:rrizod community water system is required, Tentative hydrant Y:ica`ed a� the attachad preliminary,map. final locations must be exactly indicated and final mapsfeet, hydrant size ts required r.arimun hydraht to hydrant spacing and inst,rtlle,i ,tscut'ding tit iltrtte County Public Wurks 1ptcification � y,' r minute. S_21and -requirements Of local water, agency. RequiNd fire flows are gallons pe g r t Class y. Nater for fireiPemt!nts. If this is not feasible�rable system l a hydrant Matz at,on flowk- listed under other condYtio rotec,tion is required. The prefe tte systemacapablrenen static the fire flow rcquiv �� ( ) pendent capable st pendent pu;aps, stat" .ter storage and dr standpipes may be substituted. Such aassystemt�so5ubjectnto- the approval of the fire department. The avdilable water flow froin such a system lawPravts�ons must galiont per minute, The minimuY volume of water in storage must be gallons. be rrade to insure the system provided is maintainer!' to its design capacity. ( ) 13.01-5 ReauireMent ilass�5. Pressurized w�atev for fire protection it available within 1,000 feet of tfic created parcels. In lieu of bearing the cost of installing a fire hydrant(s) the developerhdrant fund into based the 'f ire depaetFaeit h;drant fund: fay ih'lieu fee into. c n,crtc ) on S1.25 per frontage foot, Fronto t5_is indicated by the 'red lime on the attached map, Approximate fee _ t recorded on final map, fronta90 is S' Final rontage calculatian to be made by Surveyor and calculatioi► wilt include both sides of the street bn included streets, ( ) Required water system far' fire protection must be installed .and atterating prior to building constxuctibn.N KX) Other No objections -� ( ) Response times for the first 3 fire engines is as follows* GCiFJBCf6 inutes 1 Station ... m 2. _Stationf - ...minutes = minutes 3, 'Sta'tion - In the Safety Element of the ButteCounty General Plan, this project area is classified as 'a. fire hazard area,WILLIAM C, TEIE County Fire Warden 1 " py: �. G+:cv,:}h, L_�„ut;,:a _ Banal ion Chi f l�;total inter pehcy requie6ents to hydrants may be more restrictitie: __ . ,:• 4 t_n r _t n .. ♦ _ 1. a : �. w"�._.r.. .r ..aa�.. tri ' ��ww.'a1r�w+�...r _I r. �. •y.n.a,_r n. M: w_ �a •. r ' I � �y 1 BUTTE CHNITY PLh,,:•iti�G CO)"JI:ISSI[1'l ffeCo, Planning C&nnu % COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLEo CALIFORNI,1 ` c 71.-I! 1 lq-' ii' C:}NE 5� ii l i I rr�� PHl ,Cdr oroville; CuGft;ttA O: Lynn Uailhart, Env. Health D1Ji'i:, February: 14, 1984 PE- PRO,ii;O'[' REVIEM AM EidV1 �n w:x.I�"f der Elrrz:LFJ TION Enclosed is brelimirarY data otic` o;ItcrT host rect-icved oreneratedi concerning the follo;yir, yrojeci: Do,!td oC ;Suporvisors General plan Amendment .From, orchard am -1 fi.c'7a croi}s . to the uruan side' ofth.e grcenline Cud U i il d, y ii,r d "ii i l: ai ' t U.;ii4 L d li i(tU ti'l7S L I :k: SuL1d1Q1G Pacific Railruad tracks, on the south bit East ActarltIC, and llenshaw ve-5118 f on Brie aasL. 1' t., H-T7i , l`tw lLit'�nadl on, the no -ft 1 yis x7uad andMuir :lvttirio in Northcwest Chit`) - .Nu. 8,1- 7 Log 1084-01-35-UZ We are an ass-tzezment of 10csiL-le ev"i OrImental im-tach and will hp p-ej,-:;"ing an at Declaration, Mit gi r fA� COUNTY fl* l � �`'G COMMI SS ITI / Ctl�li TY CEf' Tt4r', ry::°`Ji - Qc O\' I L1.E, GAL I � QRftiL! �J59G5 tr IHONi : 534-1160 `5 n�'��, . nitY I s1984 (► �:u �, � 1 S'4 Farm Adti•isou ' _ Jerry Smith V�rl Ti)r t♦t T- Iir L` . nr. Cl.liid 7r� [ �. C. R.'l hii i•.�.� � i•4�`.~•;�_urr�r r,v„z�;;r~�><�ori ncl.osEa in, prep Ar'w'ry data ow of is Ir' , Yt^L3�'µt� C:' E*:7C2'OiCC� COCCC1I1it1� , Board and o C Stir) c, ►rt i Sors Gcnlclrr► f u an Amendn- Cttt fro- orchard ood fic.] l craps to the ttr't�rtrt s cfc o�' tEte gr�:enl tic x” :,;sccsu t'z�%;i-C ti'tGr� ut';ti�ctu ZSi",ir Ti�� ticau_ia�.�u Pacific. tt�t.�L tracks, tett th- "Sot, ^,tt�' hw`Ltictto7— tTi."b cloklori'haw oacl Faci iC R.il t �*� nuE att v�t� , ost tttt` c �ijts=tet i1_i t, ttatt� tti an � .c - ;�' 51-37 i,b� 8�1- attrs �;ttt r� lit"cPrnt an ,`,r,rt!tira*,t C,ttl4 bl-J.i-U W4 ire r_r.ln, ."tr..1 prisSib` e nnt•:tronmental, i. pacts and mill be ' ra.p r;n ai% er4 v1rO .r:^ ratrtl cloctIIn 11t'f uItIIL:r a ,Nf-U,,aLjvft Declaration, M'i'Lir;a'Ced ea:. t Provide any f tallt'.11 Ox�CC"`Cc�t 1'fft'�'f.iP l`tl.�•7f1tL9`ii��b�iltG,�'0 Oj i23I is 1 w u' in , ' i 'v' l"'t� {,i:tt th � •ro uct. may .encivatei ". . i �r . f' F l�°j lE3:t Oi tti' ii�r"F:crx ftgtL't� d,,Jv. It no It' �JDit$e lu .i xs s< bo r i�C`;:.:ho K. xw i }«�t�`}.. c'I:'stillr%�4�- 1.}:��_ tllOre' imtii..t» whirii t�rc. poUtttri xl from th, pro'urt. ,9 We t 13"r..t li:wr,' i`f c-��r]ti`OtiL`tZ �?mi, c4an PrO\�idiv- ;; l?u�fe Co. pi�rnng Come. S�royrtl_��, C?toYi!!et CiliiitlrrP,a , Cv.x`� l% tlj �•�✓' yam' -:tom k� 9 fc Planning Technic i 1'rt t Car..; ::;t» s A'LL" M Y.�,.: ",�.:. i`G� ► - �; ,�ry(.c�-f��-t;"--��L�' W J�±'��C1„iC. '/ `'��-� � t.�-�'t ii .. , L-f,�2 r � . .:. _ PrP .` ♦ s. � �r" r , w' .°y�r ,� t r ". y `r ari«!r+ ... _ IM -1 OC rv ah �Y BUTTE. W ! , _ k Lrlhl l PSG COQati� a .I SSIDL . � %COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLEj CALIFORNIA 95QE5 PHONE534-4601 TO: John 1`tendorlsa, Public 1',orks Dkpi?,: Pebz-uary 14, 1984 RE: PROJECT aT ItG,JJEW AND F;iwUTh�;).tcLi1+ At, F.k'AiUTJATION %, orgenerated �enQra ed concerning limcrydata r office ttaa recei%Te( Enc 1os?? t"isps Gcltern Plan 1rnenirtent the followingprujtrt Bba rd of fron orchard acizlicld crops to th:.r uuan side til ti}ie green line `rl LL.. illi 1 l 1�1 i l t i...U l .,l.t,. rl Il�t,: l� > _ - Ilacit c R.� lrc.=.tl tracks, oil the Sotlt)t 1,)y Etist Avelttle, and })ens,haw lG . Oft tyle tlort t y' c toad �ECf111C OJI Zile Lits 4 y" t 1Cl ;(*110 �IN!O and Muir ,�ti`clttle 111 : nrtftlJl"St Chirc► - ? o. S"1-37 ).o =, $r) 01-_I;3-UL. ar` calci l; aa. ar: •`. "r`s:rt of }l� -%Iblc eriviron.nontal impacts and will be grep.r r, an e°:�% Ta:l+:.'.elrtta�s dewt:ere=.r.i, 011, r t tt�t-,�a.tivc I7e�claratior�, tditi ate�l r'f azt`'u ` Ci=is"+'iM3,l:t or' All u"'ViI`<?Il�1VrILAI rL: "'I Lr`:LC} a: pjs,4"::,1 ;i tiltttii rit:i, Itis'%ir for 121•✓.--1 gation, or opirilC):lS Pleas s r ., t,r r°� ir:l" Lh•lt rolate to eY t1wr" It .�""11.:" :tl t":e t1 C ttiSlt'e'[!t C/1" or eta^o:;: 1 , , Lc t' .ii t)ti trojtsct maygenerate:. ,zl e pr,rl. . 1 f no r ; ry , i:, G't1 " rrtl,rt'.l} that t e •t' are nes } �, `.i lit 2�s1 J i t,}S n i t}1"i1 e/ . )1 1 f;cr, l•.ut by' �,. , potent 're5rt the gr�r,ject 51 .x w 'tltG e ".✓12"t2. . :a"tl Jrl;p- i.r which .irt. � 1 Wo ap}3r`_"�""atc :ilei a c: istandu v,,'u can pa': S �.1:c r5 .•:el ;; i ��©�, panning Cexntn Orovil�e3, Catiiornla gick.Rodri"yt1 )lat,ni tt�5 I �C itltic%n G �1'l` t�Y ���� i�.r•► wfr 1ct pr.:vi.ic`,: !,r fit" I i1t p ttY.ir, BUTTE C Issi rig' ►`i I � �1 I f �� GCI �� , � �; ��._ a iii 1 f - r+fl I'L.LL, /t L.I-FGRa+:IA �'`! COWNTY CEUTP I7iz I V 0�,, V PHOiI ,t• t 1984 TCI : Count)' SlicI'i r (ju,j.Co.Plannirig '[F':I Aim Orov1110, Cafitrskn;n - �,,_ r y S6`3Xf C1i't'u Gt.: orvic!! it.'N t't"si'V:1 Cit•<1i21a+ G(kGR?'ra1T1ij' Faclo��+ is �tl c;ttlkc;rc=i;, ,.; Cttrrlertk� Ilttrt A.t�nclrent the folluVirl; n.c,a,:ctz Lt,.trcl p t to tltL' k+t'its.k i'L! t+r the green line - _. i istuv ;Uit^a,+c, Eit l.cl rrcll� '-itifro ru;art1Jst i;tL tiCik,�`!'i:ttU r c`k it.I tlen.Miaw Pacific Rat.l rS tt.k l j cis _ �---" V,"`Q i I, "k c�ya,�,'�.. ��F�k"+t:+ Yi`l1tk�'Y..�M4t r' r =' ly e y} t;l* i t7 '; � a i.o 0 15,1 U I attd phti r .xVW'!LvL!' `ttt t i7Hk� .L , u.'S111l by W? tire t kiniz; d 'Oc - ,,t+ Qt'V ,t.1 i°I.:.t:.i ^, f.. t •vrK :,. ti � rr ,�^� t. t J , r. i ^ k �,�-�i,,,itl:r y'Da Cori v fu Y r 1 w` . hS:'t k i3 G, :,: t :S _ 1', " �J t i wre ` i,' bt i, -i t r'+ i I'O l ilki t..t P,[t e r { i ti t i „i Ar t':1 ivy �,. YJ �. o1'i1. i ,�) 4• Ck t Y. 'i` ..q � :�S11 Lei^ •.,V �YKQ .'.., .n .,yL,.— k.�x r t y ,. is ..�� .�.'.�wi. ..•, vQll 'Wt .;L',k+ta r^i. we �pt12 f r 1 i1 .^ J j ti r � .• is ='�, `-�.", t( �,....; , t.--�--� fi' t I; Iry rl r i',; tt p,tttIn%ng 'I',clank:t,tt Thei e is no pt+ rt�l etc t utu � r,%,Iclr ce"nto rkA p o-tTr-- project G�u....ttk.,. eYc7iL't='t attl res�.dt.nti'e173.Al t "tz+wp,ti t c. kt . T'o by the.. i3k:kt�e�i'b n �y'S'fieri`f estabi�is net-tr tht`+ ��'�,jert i� provided of an t1`-re:a cinT;ty"-t'+, r.- tr+"tfi►n-.prn=��---- would be at least. 15 minutes.�_ - ____.- Incl rir�th no ra7rc•t� r� siclrr fic tnt increases slut Given current td8,0kIrCes r yiu s M r,ty Vit,+ ��,� k ., nj e -new-�evel�aP= tp-"bbaleta�:-} const"L ints;rea m oif be grouter th4`ti tt�%lyteii�is*r:o �`ep�-opmenb--irecoives `he. ent would tI�Lild_furt IiBitG E' I-Crrl#�-. OI` -•SET t t'z�. }►4 .1 �' ,"" ��� k1i�tYi`i'" w iy;^L tS c'ibi l t0 meet strain exi"sti.rk�7 t' all`t 'S. ryi'13 +'tY'.I r`��} 't`'k: t , r�ntlre unintbrPorhtet ats m ndatecl responni bi t it area. 1it i.,244,i The Butte County ,Sheriff's Department is presently operating at an absolute minimum staffing level o: sworn personnel. Further reductions of these resources will result ill. inability to meet emergency require- ments for adequate protection of life and property and the maintenance of reasonable officer safety standards, .�-- It should be clearly understood that this proposed s;ibdivision is not �, targeted as tho cetus:�, ratifier, as a contributing fact°or. It is the collective impact of approved and a tentative impact of, proposed development projects-; that are without provisions for supporting additional cost, of, emergency services that is the, real c:ulprit.. Because of the criticalgna,ture of the emer e� services and the minimum level of police resources at this ti'rme, the problem must be addressed during the planning process. A.PPENDIX 16.3 LIST OF PARCELS INVOLVED THE IN GENERAL PLAN AMNDKIMT s ASSESSOR PARCEL NWHBER ACRES 042-02-21,22,42 28 042-02-10 20 042-02-20 10 042-02-54 - 4 i 042-02-17 2 042-02-6, 7, '1o.1 - 30.3 . 042-02-9, '10 10 042-02-6i 7, 101 042-02-23 2 042-02-16 2 04242-50 4.8 042-02-55 5 042-02-19 i$.5' o42-o2-89 4.8 s ■ 04205-38 -042-05-33 042-05-14 7.3 042,405-34 g' 042-06-15 10 042-05-35, 62 Miteral Only 042-06-56 5 . 04,,.05-24 2.5 042-0545 5 i042_05-64 042-02'-27 a 16:3-1 ASSESSOR PARCEL NU1 BER ACRES 5 042-02-98 04245-67 4.6 o42-02-35 042-06-77 4.8' 042-06-76 4.6 10 042-07-8 t 042-05-61 5. t 16 --2 APPENDIX 16, It APPLICABLE ZONING PtOULATIONS Sec. 24-72. A-5 (Agricultural) Zones. ( A) Uses per,reitt ed; (1) One single4amily-dwelling per parcel; (2) General farming, horticulture, commercial livestock, poultry production, warehousing and storage; (3) Aw,,ssory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted usts, including agricultural processing plants; (4) Housing facilities (including mobile homes) to accom- modate only agricultural employees and their families employed by the owner or operator of the premises; and provided further that such housing facility shall be conisidered 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 following conditions are conformed to .' (a) The floor area within the mobile borne shallnot be less than.five hundred 000) square feet: (b) The parcel of land conforms to section 24-72('C) (Minimum lot area of 'five (5) acres), or a smaller parcel of land lawfully created, #) Wes regttinng use permits: The following uses aie - permitted ins a use permit in each case: d subject to secur (1) Golf courses;and country, clubs; (2) Public or quasi-public uses 'including churches, hospitals,_ and clinics, parks and play- ` firehouses, grounds, schools, public utility buildings; (3) Segregation of homesiteg, pursuant to the require- ments of flection 24-59; Segregation of iltotatioin processing uses, pursuatnt egnts to the requirem (5) uarr in commercial excavatio mining, q Y � [;> . e And, wood ptdt Ossing plants = 1 16:4"1 r r (C) Minimum lot area required: The requirements sof' Code notwithstanding, the minimum section 2433 of this lot area in A-5 zones shall not belessthan five (5) acres; § 11 11-25-80) (Ord: No. 1750, § 1, 8.31-76; Ord. No. 2167, Secs, 24-73, 24.74. Reserved. Sec. 74-75. A -lo ;(Agricultural) Zone, (a:) Uses permitted: (1) One single-family dwelling per parcel, including mobile hornes (2) General agricultural farming, horticulture, commercial and harvesting livestock, poultry production, growing forestry products, warehousing and' storage; (3) Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses, including agricultural processing plants; (4) Housing facilities (including trailers) to accommodate' by the only employees and their fa rdlies employed the premi r --s; and provided owner or operator of further that such housing facility small be considered accessory to the main building and shall confornii, to the provisions pertaining to.required yard and open space for dwellings; (,o) ruining, quarrying; commercial excavation and wond processing plants; fishing camps; including -.those which (6) Hunting and fi " recreational vehicles and travel trailers, accamrnodate providing that said recreational vehidles and travel trailers shall not be used for year-round occupancy. (b) Uses "requiring use permits; The following uses are it in each case: p subject:to securing 6 use perm ermined - �1� ,Segregation of hoinesites; p ursuant to the require - menta of section 246641' on of icultural "processing uses; pursuant (2) $egreg anagr o the requirements. of section M-55. r16,4--2 -' etc, 24=162, Sit-1 (Sub iirban Residential) Zone. (A) Uaea permW46: 'parcel, not including ( 1) One single -family dwelling per or mobile homes tents, trailers building® pe rtinen't to the permitted uses; (2) Accessory icultural uses excepting a minimum lot area of (3) A> 43,660) square five hundred sixty forty-three thousand feet to be devoted to residential use and the #oll, Vn kept on the additional requirements for each animal premises e or swine over (a) For each horse or othousalnd 'one hundred one year of age—Eight twenty-five (8x125) square feet. E 2 1, , 0 (b) For or oat—T�o thousand each sheep 00) square feet. uses [are P use permit:] The following 'each ($) [Uses re9uirin case: subject to securing s use permit in permitted] (1) Golf courses and country clubs; fire- Public and 'quasi-public uses including churches, Public schools ; 2' playgrou, and i) arks and houses, hospitals, parks 1 public utility buildings, . Sales tract (3) office, _ shall apply except- (Cct[idsemens.] Section ,2��-33 ing width and of area ll not beO pedwelling The minimum lot area the prgvlaionr oft section 24-33' less: than one acre, notwithstanding.' (2) The minimum lot width shall nobe s of than feet, the provisions 13o 1, 8-31-76' hundred thirty (Ito) Ord'. No. 1750, § 33 24-notwithstanding. r t _ s 16,4-4 APPENDIX 16.5 CHICO AREA GRRENLINE POLICY VL. CHICO AREA GREENLINE' In addition. to the other policies of the Butte County General Plan, the following policy is applicable to the Chico Area Land Use Plan: '+ is 'e A. PURPOSES The purposes of this policy are: a) To define the limits of future urban development which may occur on agricultural ;lands in the Chico Area of Butte County. b) To provide for the long-term g- protection of agricultural resources of the Chico Area of Butte County. C b u To mitigate the threat to agricultural resources posed y 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 Butte County. e) To establish County cooperation with the City of Chico. in land use planning of urban and agricultural lands located' in the Chico Area of Butte County. f) To identify urban development 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 Stine and policy text. h) To establish certain land use designations for the Chico Are1 of Butte County in conformity with the afore- mentioned boundary= line a,nd policy text. B FINDINGS rThe p rs of. Butte County hereby find wid deteruervisamine that,.t a) Butte County possesses valuable agricultural lands with prime and non -prime soils and one of the finest growing climates ' in the world. b) Agriculture and it's related businesses are critical to Butte County's economic stability. Inappropriately placed urban development in the Chico Area of But County threatens the continued viability and cultivation practices of rr commecialagriculture in the Chico Area. ' c) At present, the Chico Area of Butte County is substantially surrounded by agricultural lands on its northwestern, western, and southwestern borders. Theseagricultural lands play a vital role in the overall economic vitality of Butte County and must be conserved: d) T'he Chico Area of Butte County has 'exper'ienced the continued conversion ofvaluable agricultural lands to urban and suburban development. Urless the Land Use Element of the ButteCounty General Plan, as it pertains to the Chico Area, is amended to include an urban limit line and a clear policy text, it is likely that the Chico Area of Butte County will continue to experience such conversion in the future, with significant adverse effects on the viability of agricultural uses in the �j. Chico;Area, ., r e) 7t is critically important to the citizens of Butte Greennn�obensurebnagraer County that the Chico Area that ethe agricultural lands a . g Chico: Area to conserve of agricultural l anr�s in the cultural viability ed by premature and inappropriate destroy - 1 is nat,.permanently corversion to non-agricultural uses. will Chico Are=a of Butte County o ation of the {,The p pelof Chico General Flan estimates The Gity 71,100 continue to grow. 500 to population xaiige of from 56, an Urban area will result in urbanization L� which individuals by the year 1935, in the Chico area. er,essoilstjle to 1,600 acr,.es of Chu productive agricultural suburban development, Chico Area of Butte County Ffuture committed to future urban and already orting soils as less pr.oductioementls as well Suchblessfpxodpctive . el p, of the urban limit line rbann. uloca ed easterly are generally located established by this ardi;�anCeleToductiveaagricultural Iands established to protect uncommittedbased upon Chico Area of Butte County, it is likely, rowth will suburban g in the committed historical trends, that future urban and are a duse. not be directed rriwardtinsurlban`a dhsuburbanich land, or capable of supporting of Butte County that to ea le g It is the de ire of the p P Tanned ed to d'and land devthepChicorArearshaYl r Future urban be in population grotiti, the Side accommodated vn the Urban accommo4 onfof urbanGlandedevelopment Such direction and hereby declared to !�alauses�ontthe Agricnlnural Sideofl -� is Iple servation of:agritultur eo le It is Further the desire of reenlne�, Butte Chico Area Greenl Cbl c officials of the County P � Chico in order, of Butte County po��ulati`rn cooperate with public officials of the City of accommodating_p .,� purposes of the Chico, Area s that this polic} P P agricultural lands g growth and of conserving are carried nut. r�nonents of I proper Iething herein is intended to,_relieve the p. the Chico Aria of a�, re urban lsnd developments zn res required in grderr to charges fa.� _ s or _ g . assess;ments, fee to such urbanland: and reasonable public services to `fund the cost of providing; the residents thereof= developmen'ta or TIt71�S C; bEFIirI words and phrases ur oses of this policy, the Following v this For P P - respectively ascxibed to them, b, resp shall have the meanings the section: geographic area shown on a) "Chico 4rea" means that art of the Butte County a Chico Area LAnd Use flan reap, P Use Elemerit.= ��YJ�f4 111 y i b) ,official Chico Area Greenline'Maps" means the Chico Area Land Use Plan and that large scale map certified by the planning Director and 7n file in the Planning Department office located at -7 Ctunty Center Drive, Oroville, California. c) OChicv Area Greenline" means the boundary line established by this p6licy and delineated or, the Official Chico Area Greenline Aid wh p ich 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 Phan 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) "Ag-iculturAl" land use designation and "Agricultural Uses'" mean the "Primary Uses" and the "Secondary Uses" set fort'°n in the "oichard and :Field. Crop land use designation of the Butte County Land Use Element as it existed on March 1 1982 and as ankended frm time to time. f)? c� "Agricultural Residential" land use designation means the Agricultural Residential"asait ex designation of the " 982,:.. Butte County Land Use Element sted ori March 1, 1 and as amended from time to time. g) "U,ban/Suburban Land. Uses"' means all lawful uses of land (including agricultural and agricultural residential land uses) ll h) "Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenl sated es refer to lands within the Chico Area which are located westerly of the Chico Area Greenline. i) t°Urban Side of the Chico Area Greenline" shall refer to lands within the Chico Area whish are located easterly of the Chico -.Area Greenline. D. ESTAB LTSN'.�fEhFT OF CNICO AREA GREEhLINE The General Plan' of t}ie County of Butte is herebyam ended; as follows t' a) There is hereby esttablished t}e Chico Area Greenline which shall be located as shown on the official Chico Aren Greenline Map. The Official Chico, Area Greenline Map is Yµ� a dto this, a, iise or amtha5.refeppeai, r . b bhould opthis otic bythis appear as to the rated. into Chico Area Greenline, the rollow�.ng' he C Inco. o .dation, of t _ ' enact 10 ch v pplseci in dete'rma.nng the exact location o rules shall be a 5i ` Y` entified in the Chico Area Land l The Greenling 'shall 'be id `. i the Chico Area Land Ise. Plan with a bold dash line' a$ shovtn on 8 The GreenlYne is 5peclf�c, large scala m1ps Use Plan Mrp. �. Planning Director shall be consulted in the certified b the Plannin event of a dispute. _ roximate1 following, 2) Where the Greenline is iiiidcated as app> Y street n alle}r, rai` troad right�6of way, creek or ba -Tinel, lint's j the cen;terlrie of +such street; alley , rail.xoad tight�of-w`a , creek or channel lines ,sh�17 be construed to �e'the Zocatiori of the 'Greenline i rt63- ... .- .... .. [Fit-., Where the Greenline is indicated as approximately following a lot line, such Sot line shall be construed to be the location of tj�p Greenyinte that is not subdivided, and 4) "With respect. to property parcel, the ine where the Chico Area Gre�t�lunlesssthe ssame oisoindicated by - location of the Greenlrn , nn the Official Chico Area GearingnOrl- the dimensions reel shown e the use of the scale apP tha'1l be determined by Official Chico Area Greenline Map. lines, and C,) The Are Chico Area Greenline shall consaiGreente the boundary between h the SideeoChico Areaf the �Greenline". "Agriculturaloccur on the d) Agricultural oFsthenChico1AreauGreenline only within Agricultural Side r cultural Residential use on those areas >desi.gnated ,for Ag the Official Chico Area Greenline Map._ d of this e Except as provided for in subsection ( al e of the section all land use on the AolellofrAgricultural land luses I Area Greenline shalt consist n. as provided by the OrchTbhna5adelofdtheoChaco1AreayGreenline f) sand, uses ori the eUpolicies of the Land Use containedElemenin shail be guided by the applicable urban land use designation as con the ILand Use Element. ESTABLISHMENT OF Ctilco AREA LAND tJSE POLICIES ' e the adverse effects which land In, order to minimize or elimir_at ricultural lands ;n the Chico prem, and inappropriate convey �_ - . y ado cion to urban/subur.an iP to cause to the ag o;llcies axe rzrGeneralped uses are lil ely t =: Area of Butte County, the following p as p art of_the Land Use Element °� ori"BBtteeCounn�Y co Are to conserve Plan, -ape c of Butte County, the Chico applicable to the Chico l) It shall. be the poli Y and pxot�'ct lot Agriculonx�heUAgricultural Side: of the. ' Area that are situated to accommodate Chico Area Greenlinei olicy of, Butte County It shall be the P growth that occurs in the Chico Area t future urban/suburban g sated in the Urban Side of the t Of Butte Count on lands sit Chico Area Greenline. E . RESERtv'Eb . ZOI�It�G REGULATIONS O1] Cj+ a)n ' order to carry out, purposes of this p sties orated, on the A ,ricultUra.l Side o f the Chica b e " { + r1. prdpe_ mooned or rezoned x Area Greeri ine shall soljcyuast nllot�ts. -n the effective acoordance with this P tent with this pAlrcy 1 All areas wh 'ch are o ned o s ; A-_ l0 +a ) olicv are deemed, consistent, _ date of this p_ n ural Residential 2) All .areas which a`t�e . shoi`: ps Agrr cult tined p on .the Chico ,area Greenl�rie Isla shall fteYeaftet` a reg 16 3-4 - to a consistent zone or a conditionally consistent zone, as the same were listed as of, March, 1 1932, in the Agricultural Residential, Land Use Designation of the Butte County General Plan. Rezoning shall be,accomplished by the Butte County Board of Supervisors in the manner prescribed by late. 3) After the effective date of this policy, except as speci- fied in this subsection (a), no property on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline shall be rezoned to an A-2 4 S, or .A-10 zoning district calssification. 4) All lands located on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline that are not affected by the above (a) shall: hereafter be zoned or rezoned, consistent with this policy.,` Such zoning orrezoningshall be dome by the Butte County Board of Supervisors through the exercise of its discretion anti in the manner prescribed by lair. b)'All references to A-2, A-5, A-'10, A-20 A-40, and A-IE0 zoning districts, as i<e:ll as rexere'nces to the consistent and conditionally consistent designations applicable to the j Agricultural Residential. Land Use Desitpation, shall be deemed to mean those same oning district designations ,and terms as detinesl in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code as the sane read on March 1, 1952 and as amended fron time to time. c) An} existing legal lot of record located on. the Agri- cultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline which, as a result of the adoption of this policy, does not conform with the min- imumsize required by the zoning district desigrw'tion assigned. 1 by this policy shall be a nonconforming lot and shall be. ' entitled to the benefits and the restrictions of r►onconformina lots as established by IAV d) Nothing contained in this policy shall be deemed to prohibit the application of the agricultural nuisance ordinance (Butte County OrdinanceNumber 2233) or the ;agricultural I segregation ordinance (Sections 24-54 and 24=35 of Chapter 14 of the Butte County +Code), as the same may now exist or hereafter be amended H,. ZONING CONSISTENCY Ah;D TIMING s 1. The Chico Area Land Use Plan establishes land use designations which depict desirable future land use patterns. State law requires consistency between general plan policies And zoning4 in order to encourage an orderly transition of land use from the existing to the desired pattern, the County shall. undertake to rezone those lands consistently with the Chico Area- Land Use Plan, Zoning in these areas shall be Adequate- servicestldrainahea et�oasurate showing of need, Pg .g . ' q g , provided, 'for in the Butte County Land`Use Element, Zoning in these areas to less than the maximum provided for in the Plan's designations shall be considered consistent with the Butte County!s`General Plan by Virtue of policies directed at Orderly Development ('page 30Y, and Residential letelopment (pages 33-34). Priority shall beY � p... y, given to those areas with infra3tructure ca a<:at I. AMENDMENT AND REVIEW The above Greenlne Policy may be amended as follows: a ma''orit vote of the ButteCountyBoard•of'Super- 1 By'rovided, however, that if an such amendment involves visors p that a change in the location of the aChrooeArea Gamendment only the Bbard of Supervisors PP, afar the adoption of written findings of fact, supported by substantial evidence in the public record, showing• a) That the public benefits of converting the agricultural land to urban land substantially outweigh the public benefits of continued agricultural production; and 1 b') There are no other urban or suburban lands reasonab y available and suita`ole for the proposed development. 2) The Gre<enl ne is establisoednsurethe that theperiod landcovered use needs the General Plan,, 20 _years. T of. the Chico Area are being met, the location ofeaT$•Grolne shall be reviewed and evaluated every five (5) y this purpose the Board of SLIpervisors commits itself to ' initiate such a review at: the time interval specified above. amendments shall beNothinmade onn.thly �s policyn the nshall' specifedn subsection I above. changes or amend prex{ent an individual at any time from p ettianing 'the Board a change of Supervisors for a, general plan nmendment accor& withlthena.pplicable in the location of the Greenlne laws and policies of the County of Butte and State'of California. ■ 1 Stud) Area NO. . l ■ ) r ezierally known as the: Bali-'-wir area located in northwest The area S t]:c Sotithtrn P:lc fie P.xxlroad Tracks, on - Ch ico (bottnd�:d. on tAVehuc he ,t� t by t. the south try Last Av enue olid Hens}�:�� �; rttjcil ) ion shdce g attd asmA "Study and on' the north by Tell Road and. Mutt . �� t i 1" This designation shall }1ty i � attt� ition to that shown on t?iE Are<< Igo • This nYF << rlc, ; grated as a Study Area;No Chico At`ea Land Use Plan rjap. t �� 11's : , 1 shall be stihj ect to the special pol i �. t os - t•�is section. revise �,it'�;1� rlajoaa4) vote, may a, The ,Board of. St�pervi sors, c a ry,� C �.en7: ino so as to p1ac� the the locatic"n os the Chico . Study Area No l oft the lrb:.;rt 5i;c��: t).,4,Lhio Area Greenlire r 16,5-6 m7mm::ml v B11TTE CO111`1 Y PAGE 4' _ t DATE PRINTED 04%29/85 POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JAN 1 FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES INCENSUS CALIFORNIA 1980 1981 '9033 1984 1985 TOTALS KAY 'NOT EQUAL SUM DUE TO INDEPENDENT ROUNDING4 81GG5 1,413 1,390 1,396 1,424 1,430 1,460 ---�---------------- ---- � -. --- --- 3,150 CNICO 26,,716 27,5b0 8x150 28,550 29',650 -;;►080 -_- -4 « - ---- �---, -- ---------------------- GRiDLElt 3,982 3,9 090 4,210r 4.280 80683 9,100 _ 9,350 9,825 9.875 9,975 r 1,4 ORVILLE -----------------•----=-----------------�--_--•------------ ` .- --_-__-_•«,._:.-----=--•--- PARADISE 22,571,22;700 23.200 23,650 24,000 24,200, + - 1twN11.IMNNNNIlMNN►F,N,}IM.F1aNka_«wa NN Wa1fN%%N wwNI:NwN%N%w%MMwa%NN.IlN+IwN1FwN%w%«w NNM•1►1lNNIFAlNNNwpwNNN%wNw -� - TOTAL INCOPP0WF� Ib 63,365 64,800 66,200 67,500 69000 71,'100 %MMNIMNNNM Iia/ONwN11N1INwNKA1►kNNKM�►Na%MMNN11 NIi 11MNNN1►i/NNaiA#MaNii MJalwwww NNM%wwM11N%wk1►MM wN%�NwwNNK' UNINCORPORATED 80,486 82,'000 84,700 86y500 88,000 89,900 I� � bNN%NNMMNNMNNMwNbM1►wMIFMwIFNNNMN jYN%NMN NN KNNKwNN11N%KpNIF.N:%%w1F.wwNNR1fK%wN%MdM%NN KKwoo MNNMNw%Mw%k%�Md!!wM%Nl,w% %�FNNNI�wr.IDN%�� _. _ , •w tINNMI►NNMIIYMN%NYitMN%i1wN�lwN%NNMNk d� r'+1%N I N 143,900 146,800 TOTAL COUNTY 5 00 157,200 150,800 14,0 T6.1,000