HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 19 OF 21sei:sc,iic hazard to the project area is
SEISMICITY. The primary, potential
ground shaping.
As discussed in the Existing Setting,, there is a high
probability that the area would continue to experiece
enlIg, round
e been predicteding forithehe
future. Various intensities of graund ,shaking
Chico area. und sh��,.in8 would depend on a combination of
v
f..The intensity of grothe earthquake epioenter, the magnitude of
the type Of fault, the distance to
the earthquake, the types of 'materials tietwee6 the fault and the area, and the
Potential
properties and thickness
tooresdentalfoundation
t the site,
development andastorm drain or sewer,
ground shaking impacts
facilities could be hnf
edUniform
io m Building Codenandtandard ing thedReoommended Lateralesign and cons , 1Force
in accordance with the Un
the Structural Engineers Association of California.
Requirements prepared by
T , s loserstrength and cbecomQr saturated,
he potential for liquefa°tion, P liquid during
cohesionless (clay free) soils
ound shaking, is moderate in the site area (Butte County,
earthquake induced gr the Chico area has no docu!nente
1977) As discussed in the Existing Setting, uefaetion, lateral
history of ground rupture or groui,l failure, including l,ie
With th
spreading, lurching and differential �ettleein• design andaconstruction
,
P Appropriate engin g
utilization of standard,
methods which take into account all known seismic nfoi�na�ion, future
residential development in the project area w19 d.beandnnossignificantteht with hse sButte
mic
County Seismic Safety Element (Butte County,
hazards would be expected.
I�drolo�Y'
DRAINAGE. Development allowable after approval of the proposed GeneralPlan
.
Amendment would not after overall drainage patterns in the area, but would
incrementally increase stormwater runoff generates in the Project area. The
Rolls, Anderson & Rolls study identifies one a parcels as the approximate
limit between natural drainage and subsurface infrastructure. Technically, if
all parcels were equal to or greater
tn1.001 acruatureswouldiza lbesrequirethan d
dwelling unit- per acre)► no storm drainage be
(Edell, 1986)i ondition, the applicable road standard would at
under this e
SRS -1 and no curt+., g�ttees�or sidewalks would be needed. Natural development Anon
would be utilized to remove stormwate:
from the area. Special development
re uirements should then be implemented to increase percolation on individual
q ,
sites.
If urban standards are applied to this prop tty, the `uttersw andaY Storm
would apply.
This 'standard requires sidewalks, cur , n
Would be
drainage infrastructure. The required storm drainage infrastructure
almost indentical to the infrastrUctUre derateedec�reasedid densitr the y (Edell, '1986).
Anderson Rolls study despite the
The cost for the stoptl drainage system would be the, responsibility of the
applicants:
area is not located 'with:
FL001)ING. The project
in the.. '100 year floodplain.
Development of the area with impervious surfaces would create a minor increase
ed from the� area. If storm.
in the amount of runoff gene
cere
trunoff, the minor additional.arunoffrains aWould hot
constructed to collect s4lrfa flooding. If storm drains are not required'
be expected to cause downstream
With development, minor localized stormwater ponding may continue to occur...
e
Development of the area would be able to direct any localized stormwater
ponding a".r%�y'from residences and roadways. Measures to encourage on site
percolation or detention should .reduce this impact to insignificant levels..
' GPOUNbVIATER By the year 2000, groundwater extraction in the Chico area is
not expected: to exceed the:rate ate of recharge, although reduced irrigated
acreage will reduce the quant ieay f recharge (Butte County., 1932)• Future
development in the project a would replace portions of existing vacant
p impervious surfaces, which would represent an incremental
arcus with (recharge) due to increased urface
reduction in groundwater infiltration
runoff". The reduced recharge would not be expected to result in an adverse
impact to groundwater levels due to the limited amount of construction
o� future
allowable with one acre parcels. Potential sources of water supply
development; are addressed in Section 3.4, Public Services and Utilities
WATER QUALITY. Development resulting from the proposed. General Plan Amendment
would result in minor increases in urban pollutant quantities in runoff
traffic (hydrocarbons, rubber, iron), and
generated by increased vehicular
from application of pesticides and fertilizers. Development would not
introduce any new pollutants to area surface" aters that are not already
' present. Overall surface water quality impacts are not expected to be
signifidant. As addressed previously ;in the soils discussion, adverse erosion
impacts and associated water quality impacts from sedimentation are not
okpeoted to be significant.
'Development resulting from the proposed General Plan Amendment could also
contribute to water quality degradation through the release of wastewater
effluent depending on a number of factors discussed in Seciton 3.� ,Nd'
o
v
er,
tris probability -that the project .would. contribute a significant ad.;uat :of
nitrates to the groundwater o6tild be Negligible because the city 'and county=
are required priate method for
to determine an approwaste disposal prior to
Approval of the project as a "result of the'Nitrat'e AetoN Plan.
Groundwater quality monitoring as outlined in the Nitrate Action :Flan should
be continued to detect potential groundwater quality impacts from on and
to dentif and implement appropriate mitigation,
offsite activities and Y
MITIGATIO21 M8ASURE8
Geolo' Residential development of the project area is geotechnically
feasible, The following mitigation measures are recommended to reduce
potential tg and seismic, impacts to insignifioant levels..
otential�geol.. ie
Specific engineering design and construction techniques recommended by
the soils engineer should be incorporated:,. as P needed, into the Project
design.
Building design should comply with seismic requirements of the current
Uniform Building Code And the Recommended Lateral Force Requirements
prepared by the Structural Engineers Association of California.
.. Foundation supports and utilities should be designed to resist and
t0ith6tand earthquake induced ground shak in' g.
3,36-fi'
ry
.4
PUBLIC.SERVICES AND UTILITIES project a
' rea inrlude
EXSTINGf SETTING'• Public services provided, in the prof education
ser�'ices such as water'supply, sheriff protection, fire protection,
and road maintenance:, Most public services-availatre to sweeping
a d regular
incorporated areas of the City of Chico, sucoratedtareaseWsuch as the project
police patrols, ,are not provided de unincorporated th
fable 1n
:area.:.. The following discussions describe the primary services available
the North Chico Urban Area. private
lied to the project area primarily through p
Hr,ter Su Cali Water is supplied d private water utility,
wells. California Water Services romectyareaswith eight inch water mains
serves the southeast side of the project orated areas receile water from
Cussick Avenue. All of Chico and its unincorp
i wells. CWSC is at the purchase of a new well site near
currently looking
i 1985)
Guynn Avenue (Grant, '• septic tanks:
Wastewater Dis o'sa�.• The project area is currently served by
n f the project area to the Chico ;Water
' The nearest sewer main oonnecting
This
_ to
cated 600 feet north of East Avenue.
Pollution Control Plant is located on the north edge of East Avenue. Thi
sewer main can only serve the area
Water Pollution Corktrol Plant is cUrrently operating below -capacity,
5 been allocated for other areas of expected
The Chico ca achy
but the unused capacity already has
ontlY
growth. The City of Chico and Butte Ctam Ynationeinrgroundwatersby g P to
at the treatment plant and nitrate con
�'lement�ng the recommendations of lop arsewercMasterlPl Which. requires Bu
P eVel p
Coun.oy 'Chico to d
area is bound the limits of the
# ani tide. City ;of Ch
Plan �Yenue is the;--existing western limit.
ed by
The existing Nitrate Action
T.�.-
Greater Chico Urban Area• Alamo The development strip along
Henthaw Avenue is the existing
northern limit: rt of the study area.
State Ronte 82 to the north to about Had Creek is portso ion of the study area
Y sent strip p of the
The northeastern boundar of the develop boundary
e Southern Pacific Railroad tract, which
hTis theviesthenBe11 Muir area is
is th as defined in this EIR.
Bell Muir property, The
not within the Nitrate Ad tiori Plan 'high
itrate' contaminationsbutbuteis as not
been characterized as an area of hiF.h ..
characterized as an "Area of Conder
h" (Reid, 19871
ll include: this 'al#ea to be served and the standards and
The Raster t5lan for 8anitarY sewers a facilities; the shies for nonsea by septic.
U96 atrd, maximum de 3ered area;
area to be serve
to
nits, with deand
odule:ion of land the elimination of septic Plan indicates
le i`or.requiring Tori
re uiiemen schedu ate Act..
and a time stem. The Nitrate i660 and
connection to sanitary sewerage sY a financing plan by January .,
that the city and county will "develop t loans for the
n:Xtzesand
determine the ibfi
avail and/or facilities to unser
of grants or low interest
Of sewer, drainage a Master P�azz and
dwater. The Sewerage
avoid nitrate contamination of the grouor app i The overall
Plan have not been
completed at this bine (Tuttle►
of this Master Plan is 'uncertain
roved at this i•4►e
Financing . f thee. Brown
financial feasibility
It ahoul`d be not that the Boll Mu., properl.Y is outsidedDi o
1986): and drainage faailitilementation progrSm for he
and Caldweil plans for ,hewer am for the
Dolan to the Boar of SuOry sors outlieinri8 16111:
Nitrate Action Pl'ari .i'presented in l�pp
on and
olls
ivil
Butte,Countysin 984RwhichCincludegtheers completed a smaller scale study for
Rolls, Anderson.. and Rolls plan is project area. A summary ,graphic of the
p presented in Figure 3.4-1. The cost for a
system to serve the project area and study area was expected eted to be
approximately $4.6 million:in 1984. The option to eliminate service to the
project area, defined in the study as the "Bell Road Area."
have saved approximate){740 acres would`
25,000 in 1.984.
Payment of three fees' would
Y 2
Y be required to .obtain a connection to the city
sewage collection and treatment system: (1) a water pollution control plant
fee, (2) a trunk line ,capacity fee, and (3) a main line extension fee. The
rates may vary between residential and nonresidential areas: and fees may
change according to implementation of the Sewer Master Plan; In order to
connect to the city's water pollution control plant, the project area must be
annexed to the City of Chico, or affected property owners would be required to
sign an annexation agreement. The annexation agreement waives the "right to
opposo future annexation actions (Reid, 1986; Nunez, f986).
Storm Drasnage. There are no storm drains in the project area. Butte ,Cvnty
requires storm drains on lots with a gross area of one acre or less. Water
easily percolates into the sandy loam soil in the'nroject area and runoff has
not caused significant flooding. The project area is not within a 100 year
floodplain, according to the Rat oral Flood Insurance Program (FEMA, 1.977).
Property owner or the 'dgenerally is paid by either the
eveloper (Edell
The cost of storm drain infrastructure
19861..
Since storm waterrunoff has been listed elo;ng with septic tanks at being the
must contributory and the most eontrullable sources of nitrates, they Nitrate
Action Plan has required a sewerage plan and a storm drainage plan for the
greater Chico Urban Area. The drainage plan will include., the standards for
the elimination of all of the existing off site drainage wells; standards for
the installation of temporary drainage facilities and leachfieids'and a
financing plan for construction Of new drainage facilities. In 1985; a Storm
Drainage Study was prepared for the North Chico Area by Rolls, Anderson and
Rolls. This study included 1,338 acres -of land in the northwestern portion of
the Chico Urban Area. The study area included. the, Project area and provided a.
description of specific projects and related costs. The storm drainage
p PV p the project vicinity are`shown in Figure 3.4..2.`
The costs for hese improvements
im rovements ro Deed 'within
� and others identified in the study exceed
$9,000,000. The -Arainagd plan will be campatible with the Rolls Anderson and
Rolls
Rods plani but will not supersede it. The
is currently in progress'.
Storm Drainage Master Plan study
.
Police Services. The Butte County; Sheriff+s bepart,lent pyrovides police
servioe for unincorporated areas of Butte County. Ten deputy sheriffs serve
M the northern half of Butte County (approximately 80.0 square miles), using, a
beat patrol system. The nearest station is four to five ',miles from the
Project area at 475 B. Park Avenue and Highway 99: The average response time
to the pr, ^t area depends upon the priority of the servioe call: It called
for a Iii.:,nd death emergency, response time could be less than five minutes.
heriffis department is "severely"understaffed more hours:
could take as to at.three o The county
Honor Er�t call co at an g 65,,0.00 people. � with only two patrol officers'
d
y given time serving For minimum �itaffing, the Butte
county Sheriff's Department would need to have 60 patrol officers based on a
(� o
xv
-- �•.,..
� •11 i � B. � • -.!—' 111 CRANt �' '. '• r � ►•. .
oz ig
�... � '�� ..0 , ^� �.Z tri' .\ : • 1 M
40
r r' • , � ":,ice qq ♦�.
- ` � t �i - h� r�� ° til Pt6+ t44�� r•.. • �� �... � � • � fit,
�?A''r i•: •Y a E �P :�q�y d tEnl+i F nE T 'e ♦ q 1
Y+ • r'' �# tl ��. . w, �.E ' �y�9�� s Li • � ♦ /Y ,� •� /Meu r• �
,.',� .. Jrt i •�r♦ •+r....� j7 `- � rjx ]� �( it � V�;' i •'r •isT `/,! ►''!
,
j .•. S•ii• tl °:t d'.E.y�? 'U `r ^ YY •• + �' r.•LI ,� .1 17� � � +
♦ �1Y 'i 7,�1r� •0 • •• •�,
! .t �•r . J Y•' i tis �• •t Sf ,.;41• • • .. y +� .,
IS 6
,
�. ���,�' it r'�$(► � c. � �• r I�r 1 .y' k, yt ♦ <� •'..
;a VA• I aC ♦ j,� t. ! :t y10
•i• �f Rig �.',e.+` �• .. ,.f•..� -
ti '
24
Sol
/v
�. 5 ,�.•a•u � � � r , , •r rn . s ,e
C
.,♦ �,, .♦. ..• ". yr. � .. { Y 169 �!� 1
1i
• �`^ •• + y N . , v ;
r ,
♦ r ,� ,,ter•'^' ♦ , '
i �� s� 'O � t � • .. i
}
M�•n++r^• rrrr�r rr�.�'!'—err'
rrLrrlrrrrrr?r. �
l 1'
r� LLr1rw.+a.L.iL�rr�rr ( ,�r�
^, K
BELL MUIR AREA)
t 1`; •• • : , •>l EBBELL ROAD AREA
41
ROLLS =tRSON ROLLS STUD' ARP
is � tr•...
•Y+�( TREATMPNT 6"
AREA REQUIRES PUMPIM
jig ies TRU*IK
LINE
rr w
-------------
. .�
SCALP, :4-1 POTENTIAL 9NE
�• R EX
TENSxON PLAN
N
i" = 3000 FzruxE
34-3
�S TtEfZtJiR�D
'
'r
� A
^ "
NORTH
�HIUU
�S TtEfZtJiR�D
�N THE
'r
is
^ "
NORTH
�HIUU
At
� metric
_
_ ..
1�
�S TtEfZtJiR�D
�N THE
�'ACI�
standard of one deputy per 1,000 population. 2resently, Butte County
Sheriff's Department adgreeme
silantofficers
with(theyCityBof•Chico PoliceThe fDepartment
department has a mutual
and the California Highway Patrol (Grey, 1986)• Future service expansions are
anticipated if appropriate funding is made available.
The Butte County Fire Department is responsible fol., fire
Fire Protection. T Station 42 at
protection within unincorporated areas of Butte County.
Frontier Circle and Cohasset'Roeer4ee�eetationrinethethe pojctawnter andrea. Thedan21additional.
operates with one paid firefighter P
has
ter
er, The,BUtte
volunteer, paid f er,firefighters�who are radio dispatch County
assist ppaid epersonnel. The
m.e
Chico area has approximately 40 volunteers. Station 42 is one of the twelve
"paid" stations in the county. The service area of Station 42 has au
-Insurance Service Office (TSO) rating of Class 5 When within 1,000 Feet of a
fire hydrant and Glass :9 beyond 1,000 feet.
f
Fire department "service levels "determine the cost,ofionally AP6, ratentL scale
fireinsurancetfor0
ort to (best to worst) in an effa hot y ateavi
property owners. �e fire department e
canprovide�a waters is , tender,, omatically
a q
on the scale. If th
classification could be reduced to an 8.
The county fire department is currently unable to serve the project area
because of the lack of fire hydrants in the area, A new fire station,
adequately meeting fire pro oofsEastaAvenueoand3State Routee32AThe
bear
ahnew
project area at the interse ion
service area is called the West Chico Fire Station Benefit Area and a
mitigation fee of 75 dollars per ;parcel collected Prom new parcel divisions to
help support the cost of the new fire station. This station is estimated to
cost $400,000, with personnel costs of-approximately $140,000 to .$150,000
6 e to five
annually. )
:ResP once timeto
filler 19a•
mito the project are&.. is estimated to be t
hre
nutes (Hawkins, 1,9, ,
Schools. The Chico Unified School District serves the 'City of Chico and its
N unincorporated areas. The school district has 11medium sized elementary
schools and three small rural schools offering ki1.ndergarten through sixth
B The chool district employs 400 teachers, 250 staff persons,
rade educations 0 OhheI (Greater Chico
Chamber of Commerce, 1'986). The district also op o ,junior high
and 55 administrative or certified nonteachin8 p erases tw
schools and two high schools. These four schools aNe currently operating
below; planned capacity; however, sevel'al elementary schools are currently
operating above ,planned capacity: Relocatables (movable classrooms) are used
three out the district at elementary achoo
is and it is anticipated that 60
relocatables will be used in the: 'next Forecastsroftfuture enrollmentdemand
cannotfor
be
primary education (Matthews, 19a6i elementary' school sites
aocommodated by ,projected oapaci ies at existing
(Mathews, 1986)
The City of Chico and Butte County have adopted ordinances to generate revenue
to u�eet future school demands The fees are based on the number of rooms in
Appendix 16.10), The Chico Unified school District has
nein developments (see app rd of
adopted as ordinance to meet projected demand. The county Bos
Supoelvisors has eddent:l.y increased the feeso
are bused to
School theNeal Dow ElementarthreesmilesproawaycOn eastareaa5thsAuanueentg Neal Dow.
' its location approximately
Sch
ool currently has 411 students enrolled and
rea and presently has aa capacity of 485 t total '
Bidwell :Junior High School serves the proje
of el students and a capacity of 1,170• Bidwell ise located atChico eHigh
a
a.
Third Avenue approximately three miles from the prof approximately two
enrollment of 1,103,
School, located at ,Lincoln and West Esplanade Drive, is , Chico High School
miles from the project area. With an en
has not yet reached its planned capaditchooll sgb
are P eingdconsidered uschools
in the
are banned in the Chico area and one s
- project area, but land has not yet. been purchased'(Mathews, 1986)•
ity
other schools that serve the Chico area and Butte County are Butte Commun
College"and California State University, The
project area.
Road Maintenance. Butte County maintains theroads
in the
but at this
streets iy the project area are in need` of widening demand. The county will
time they
are considered adequate to meet existing
ce is on if
by the gasoline tax (Edell
a
intenan n�
maintain roads built Within a subdivision if the roads are bua.lt o county
standards. County road
1986)•
The Butte County Library at East 1st Avenue in Chico serves all of
Libraries constructed Butte County Library is housed in.a
the Chico area. The recently growth past the year
building designed to accommodate expected local fromitheButte County General
2000.. Funds to support the library come mainly affected by recent
Services such as the library have been adversely
Fund. SUt the library is
u,uerstocked and understaffed with
budget. cuts.. Currently,
operating hours reduced from past yearn (Terry, 1986)•
itals. Two hospitals currently serve the Chico area• Enloe hospital, a
Hot ed at 5th Avenue and Esplanade, is
Operate nonprofit facility looat roximately 220
privately p
Percent) (Calarco, 1986),
within five miles of the project area Enloe Hospital, has app
beds and is used. close to capacity (estimated at �0 p
-The second hospital `serving; the Chico area is the privately owned Chico This
within five miles of the project area.
r Community Hospital, also located 8 beds ano currently
hospital has appris not used to capacitY
oximately 5
;(estimated; at 60 percent or lo�aer) (Galatea, 13$6)• serves the City of Chico
Par,_ks and'�ecreation City maintained Bidwell Park
' ii
area Bidwell Park covers over 2,400 .acres and
and its unincorporateState University, Chico in the center of the city,
extends from California
the east
to
thillsi
'Past Bidwell Mansibni and on for ten miles te SaeramentonRiver eand oconsists of
Park - long
t land (Greater` Chico Chamber
a80wacresiofidell runimproved estate owned and maintained
of Commence, 1986)
y park
Chico Area Recr,eaticn and Park District (CARD) °peand�20ths a cSeettandthe.
located southeast of 'downtown near State Route 99
Chapman Center
located at 16th anal StheeEast Side L ttlets. IaLeagueoPark hial
k�eeh designates as recreation aY' A11 recreation areas are heavily
ated at Southgate, off State Route 99
es 1986)• Butte County. itscurrently
PlantinA a Natural
iiesourt 't and fine (Hugh
tls�ed at t�fis,tpecreation dement to :be added to
pres(, .""
discussion of Fa e
rk dedication requirements and in lieu fess will
in the dbeument Brown, 10801e
3•4i-6
IMPACTS.. The proposed project would increase the demand for public services
and utilities. This increased demand would be difficult to serve due to the
awkward and illogical pattern of parcels involved in the proposed project,
particularly -with respect to Water,, sewer and storm drainage facilities. The
following discussions describe the impacts of the project on the provision of
public, services and utility availability.
Water Supply. Development allowed under the proposed project would require up
to 86,400 gallons of water per day,,, assuming 270 additional dwelling, units and
a demand of 320 gallons per day per unit ,(Earth Metrics. Incorporated, 1986).
The California Water Services Company (CWSC) anticipates no difficulty in
providing water for this additional growth in the project area. However, the
expansion of water service would require the drilling of one additional well.
Water from the additional well would continue to meet the standards of the;
Nitrate Action Plan (Grant, 1986). Residents of the project area may choose
to drilltheir own wells, which would reduce the demand for water services
from the CWSG (Grant, 1986). However, a complete water system- for fire
protection would be required ;for site development (see Dire Protection).
Sewer Wastewater Disposal and'the Nitrate Action Plan. An estimated 77,760
gallons per day of sewage would be generated from the 270 new residences
allowed by the proposed project (90 percent of projected water use). Methods
fordisposal 'of this sewage, ag" have not been proposed by the applicants'. The use
-
of septic tanks or sewer
P s depends on data related to the Nitrate Action Plana
ackage treatment faci
A lity is not a practical alternative in the area due to
land area requirements, regulatory constraints and costs (Reid, 1986).
The followingdiscussion addresses esses the impacts
of the proposed project on the
.
t Nitrate Action Plan; as a function of sewage disposal options.
the proposed Ceberal slain + "tent would xequire a'revision to the Nitrate
Action :!lam Study Area t�:po `ij.n required map amendment would not be
considered a significan+..;_ I.mpt� A cause the new boundaries 'would form a
logical limit to th;e ziudy a yid because significant policy changes or
program amendments would np -ta equiredrsince "Areas of Concern" are Already
included within thiy study f& . , t did, 1987) •
If permanent 'septic, tanks are ..elected as the sewage, treatment method, a land
use density (dwell`ing units OP acre) requirement will have to be determined.
The most frequently discussed '"den"sity is one dwelling unit per acre. This is
the density requested by the project applicants. The Regional Quality Control
Board, may not object to this density. However, the Butte County Health
Department could not make a finding that all of the data needed to, Mb-il a tile;
density decision is or is not available at this time (Reid, 1987)• The State:
Department of Water Resources indicated that groundwater samples from new
wells representative of those to be tapped by residents in the project area
and those wells which are or will:be tapped in the vicinity would probably be
needed to support a specific density standard for the Bell Nuir property. In
Addi:Udn, the Water Resource Department stated that the threshold of
acceptability would be rather subjective because various geologists and
engineers may interpret the data dift'drdhtly (Steel.; 1987). Therefore, the
density 'decision must be made prior to approval of the proposed project or,
development that is inconsistent with the Nitrate Action 'Plan objoctives could
be allowed by the countywith project approval.;
3._ 7
If the Bell Muir pruperty is connected to the se1.wer sysb'eim initially or later
p appears
after septic tanks have been installed, it" that the proposed density
would not conflict with the Nitrate ,Action Plan. Althou@A no time limits have
been established to complete sewer connections to areas allowed to develop at
this density. If the project is connected to the sewer system, the city
would require that the' systet► be compatible with the Brown.and Caldwell sewer
study, amendments to the Brown and
Caldwell Aplan rhas onot ubeen � identified.
The density decision is ultimately the responsibility of Butte County and it
shovld be made prior to the approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment if
perlanent sewers are proposed. The decision, should be made ;in concurrence
g
with any requirements established by the Re conal Water Quality Control Board
(Reid, 1987)
A future connection of the project site to the Chico Water Pollution Control
Plant would' involve a costly new"extensionof a trunkline from the Chico
Water Pollution Control ?).ant to and throughout the roject areaj and fees for
expansion of the treatmeant plant.
The new trunk line would be expected to accommodate a'much larger area than
the project area because it is highly unlikely that the ;proposed project, by
itself, would justify such an extension. A representative proposal for sewer
system extension to the project arta is identified in the Feasibility study
for sanitary Sewer Service to the North Chico Area, 1984 prepared by Rolls,
Anderson, Rolls' (see Figure 3.4;-1). The Brown and Caldwell plan has not been
designed to serve the 'Bell 'Muir Area.
Storm Drainaae. New residential development in the project area would
increase impervious surface area, from 'buildings and roadways, which would
result in ;a corresponding -increase in ,stormwaterrut.i -f;f (see Section 3=3,
gy ge imp�ets).
GeologylHydrolo for a discussion of drama
Police Services. The proposed projeot would add to the demand for Butte
Ca�inty Sherifflis Department services and would require staff or vehicles to be
added to the department.. The incremental requirement would. be 0.65 deputies
based on the standard of one deputy per 1400 population. The associated
costs for this addition of 6ery ces would be a total of $28,500 per year
(Grey, 1886). however, further increases in staff and vehicles would be
" required to mitigate project impacts because the incremental, fee would not be
directed to the project site. Service levels would tie nsevera" with or
without the fee because of existing and projected demand.i for police
protections
Fire Proteo ion The proposed project would increase the demand. for fire
protection servcws in the project area. The lack of fire hydrants In the
proj,Qt area reduces the firefighting capabilities of the Butte County Fire
Department. Butte County Vir6 Depatt6dht Would require the installation of an
areawide pressurized water system��;or3aistent with county standards. A new
fire station (No. 43) is planned for a site hear the project area and could be
completed in two to three yearn if starL'r.d immediately: This station Would
need, to be fully staffed to accommodate the :increased demand for fire
protection services: In additions Co pang 42 woiul.d need expansion in the
interim. The number of additional volunteers he60d to protect the project -
area would be fi"ve to ten 3ndi"vidUAls. Cuitdati�*e 40VV+ IcPmeht in the Chico
area also could require irieroases in staff and equipment lir the future
Nawkins:> 19861 Tiller, 1986)
I
Schools. Tt-e proposed project "could generate 0.43 students (grades K�12) per
dwelling unit, resulting in an increase1c86,16 studental LlementarytScho l7
junior high, 26 senior high) (Mathews, 9
!hich would serve the project area, is currently at 84 percent of its capacity
' and is expected to reach capacity in the next year. Bidwell Junior High.
School is ,presently at 71 percent of its .planned capacity and it is
anticipated that the school can mecenthofpitsrojeplanngrocapacity andSenior
expected
School currently is used to 68 per
to be able to accommodate the additional residential growth in its enrollment
area. The increased number of students generated by the proposed project,
therefore, is likely to significantly affect Neal Dow School, but is not
likely to significantly affect Bidwell Junior High School or Chico 'High School
(Mathews, 1986).
The proposedproject would have a cumulative impact on schools in Chico and.
its unincorporated areas. As discussed under Existing Setting, the school
,
district anticipates the use of 60 relocatablcs to accommodate the future
growth within tue next five years. The district is also examining the
potential for new schools to accommodate growth (Mathews, 1986).
Road Maintenance and Hospital Services. Development allowed under the
nce
proposed project would incrementally
increase
nothbeaconsidered emand fn_-rindiv duaload ly or
And hospital services. These impacts
would'cumulatively significant due,to the relatively low increriz in service demand
expected by these services (Edell, Calarco, 1986)
Libraries. Development
allowed under the proposed project would incrementally
increase the demand for libvAry services which are already operating below
hour
adequate service levels (understocked, denifieant. rstaffed,reduced Formationeofting a Special)•
This incremental impact is cumulatively sig
could be considered double
ce to support the l
funding souribrary y his fee,
a is only J
taxation because the library system is supp be free, according to. Lhe'
r
State Attorney General (Terry, 1986). Therefore, t
to igatle through budget decisions made by Butte County
Parks and Recreation. 'Development under the proposed "project would
parks wind recreation services. Although
incrementally, increase the demand for pa.r
the project related in impact would not be considered significanti
the cumulative increases in demand for parks and recreation would be
considered significant'and would add
to the need for new recreation
facilities. Future programs associatedwith the Quimby Act or related funding
mechanisms may mitigate; impacts of development in future years if they are
aroved
pP • At this tin,'ative impacts on parks and recreation
facilities are unmitige, the.coma able.
ttITYGATTON t ASUR_E5. The following meas is Arehisrecommen�ed to mitigate the
Adverse public service impacts identified ed
Water 5ervic
es
watesystem will
A mit'Imum of one new well and a press
ssUltted of siterdevelopment. beAliCal
required in the project area as
Water eequire1.methts shall be met. The required Well and water system
will cost approxitately $775000.
3.4-9
Wastewaterion
Disposal and Nitrate Contamination
If septic tanks Were to be utilized permanently on the project site, the
City of Chico and Butte County should make a formal..decision on the
allowable density of development that could occur on the 'Bell Muir
property without adversely affecting potential nitrate contamination.
The density of the developmentallowableon the site should conform to
this decision. The data required to make this determination should be
defined by the'Regional Water Quality Control Board. The required. data
will probably include groundwater samples and other data from new, and
existing wells in the project vicinity.
If the density decision indicates that the proposed density is too high,,
the project could be approved contingent upon the requirement that a
' sewer hookup be installed within a time period defined by the city and'.
county. This contingent approval should not be made .Unless the. -
cReciRithe
ektbhsiob were,
approvedb the city and countyandthe time impacts
to groundwater contamination in the area:by nitrates.
If sewer lines vere to be connected to the project area, the county
could approve tree proposed General Plan Amendment and allow development
contingent upon a sewer hookup. Engineering and financing for the
future system would have to be approved by the city and county prior to
any development to asstirz that the system was feasible.
Storm Drainage:
See Section Mi Geology/Hydrology.
Police Services
Butte Count should Consider cumulative ve de;rr,nds for
police'services and
Assessment district
to maintainelop an afutureilevel ofate iserviceastaodards in_.the. €uture'. (The
feasibility ,of this mitigation measure is questionable because recent
efforts by the county to raise revenues fore this purpose have been
denied by voters.)
Butte County should consider requiring developers of the project area 'ta
Pay for the incremental impact ($28j600 per year) on police services;
created b .the r
Y p posed General Plan Amendbent:
.
Fire'Protection'Se;yices
- Butte County will collect 15 dollars per new parcel in theWest Chico
Fire station Benefit Area to acquireproject funds to build a new fi.:,e station
serve to the ro ect area:
�- Butte. County should seek additional volunteers to staff Station 42 until
Station 43 is operational.
- A ressurized water system should be installed in the project p y et area to
conform to the Butte County Fire,Depaetment requirements (see Water
Services for costs).
3.4-10
r
r
r4 . ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives to the prop
oscd project are considered in the following
l sis: the No Project Alternative e ano�ti�esxthedimpacts of these two this
r aned Project Area
a y discussion 3 of
Alternative• The fallowing ect impacts discussed in
alternatives with the proposed Proj
report. c
r
.j PROJECT ALTERNATIVE the projeot
NO PRO sites existing.
limited amount of future dev:elogk�ajjt (less than
The No Project Alternative involves maintaining
Land Use. Only a ro eet area as a result of this
go residences)General Plan acould be, added in the p j
alter No variation of .the Chico Area Greenling would. occur:
alt..... proposed
reduced or would be delayed.
Under this: alternative, most of the environmental
amental .impacts of the prof the.
project would not occur,
would be substantiallyterm alternative because
„ area in relation ;o the Chico Area
The No Project Alternative may not be a,nong Area
be
project area is defined as a study other, growth
Greenling. This designation indicates that this area is more likely
o "the Gree,
than other areas. naloag State
r, involved in an amendment to
Eaton Road Extension, development
inducSng impacts, such as in western Chico, may encourage a future
Route 32 and incre"asing urban density
eral plan Land
amendment
to the Chico Area Greenline and the
tension summarizesUimpacts of
designations foo, this area. Tissue lowing
the No Project Alternative by The No Project Alternative
LAND SE PLANNING APPLICABLnEaPLite �uD Oral land- use conflicts in the project
would maintain existing
�irb gT` ect new or larger parcels,
area
but
tv adverse land use conditiona4 The
would not increase these conflicts or sub
r beyond the project area to the west,
wou�.d be shifted to properties
stent with city and
_ demand for residential land for developmentxhie,r is evnsi
currently within the Chico Area raw h irniducin,% ''Impact of the General Plan
r county Planning policies. The B
and relocation. of the Chico Area iostuline would be avoided.
Amenument t ] impacts would be
Beneficial housing. Pp y about '2Q residential
r enerated by only This traffic
TRI►FFIC. Additional traffic would be system
in. the
,1 the prago�ed p
oxed under
units rather than the
L �silhificantly aiffect the Qroadway
e-
would not be expected to $
r project area,
Potential soil and seismic impacts Would non andiurban with
GEOL03Y/HYDROLC►GY Pat eat;. Storm drainage
get Alternative. Stormu►ater runoff and prof
the No `Prof s than xith the' `pr.op
pollutant levels would be les
ro Acted runoff.
infrastructure would not be needed to accommodate P j- public
(3TILITIES: ;impacts re"fated to additional demand for pub
r PtiBLIC SERVICES/ Plater demand would 'not
services from new residents Would be minimized". The feasibility of and peed
resgurized water system:
The incremental
require a new well or a P project area xouid be "reduced+
r for a sewer extension into fire prof
lice ries parks and recreation on the
kt� ce- fibra ri facilities.
demand for police
and fire services would be �.nsigrlificant: Irapa
'school distrieti road aintenan
would be reduced to in"significant levels
4-1
i
4,2_ EXPANDED PROJECT AREA ALTERNATIVE
The 'Expanded Project Area Alternative would involve a. General Plan Amendment
including allof the: parcels within the 430 acre area delineated in Figure
1.1-3. This alternative also would provide for one acre minimum parcel sizes,
allowing approximately 350 new residences in the area (80 more residences than.
under the proposed project). Under this alternative,, the significance of most
of the environmental impacts identified for the proposed project would be
increased as a ylf270the
new residences allowedresidences
by the-proposed this
alternative (beyondthe
The following discussion clarifies the differences between the impacts of the
proposed project and this alternative. In summary the Expanded Project Area
Alternative Mould generate slightly greater incremental and cumulative impacts
p density. Table 2.1-2 summarizes the approxitaate cost
the uniform development y area to
than the proposed project, and Would be more logical and cost effective
for the required and recommended mitigation for the expanded project are
alternative.
- LAND USE PLANNING APPLICABLE -PLANS AND POLICIES. The Expanded Project Area
Alternative would allow for improved internal land use compatibility between
he removal of agricultural as the
urban and agricultural uses by allowing he pattern of land' ns
predominant use of the project area. use designations
would be considered more logical and stable than under the proposed project.
However, the expanded development potential would further disrupt the city's
and county's intention to' guide development to other areas in Chico and away
from prime agricultural lands. Beneficial housing "supply impacts weuld. be
increased with the potential for additional units~
-The-increasedTRAFFIC-development potential of the- Expanded
Project AreaC�
Alternative would increase the significance of the incremental
impact of trips generated by the proposed project. The total number of daily
and peak hour 'trips generated Would be 31500 and 350; respectively. Measures
impacts and related
to mitigate funding for realigning unconventional
' intersections would become more important and urgent:
GEOLOGY ARD RVDROLOGY. Soils and seismic impacts would not be substantially
different with a higher number of units at an equivalent density (one
unit%acr:e). As compared to the ,proposed project, this al rrnative would add
more impervious sttrfwaterban
6, However,s, (increasing rthese)impacts � ould not uld ibetsubstante more, ially
pollutants to Soca
fall
pro posed project,
different than those ass oeiatea with the
POBLIC SERVICES AND_.UTILES
_ITI:' The 84 additional residential units ;(350 total
units) allowable under the Expanded Project Area AlternatiVO roximauld i3.Orpercent
the demand for public services in the project area by app
over the proposed project: Hoxever, the provision of public services would be
more logical with this alternative due to the uniform development density.
Water use and wastewater genel^ation would increase: Water demand would be
Mons ;per day and would increase the probability that
approximately 12,000 gallons be
needed on the site,
a second well would: be n' e: Wastewater volumes would
pp 704,'800 gallons per day. A total of approximately 15a students
Mould be exile police services, fire protection serV
a' " roximatel'
expected which
would to existing and projected capacitices, parks
inadequacies. Th
GNIF.ICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AYOIDEfi:IF THE
S, S� --
PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
Section 3 of this EIR identifies the envirormental effects, of the proposed
project.: Table 2.1-1 summarizes lementation ofpacts and
theclarifies
recommendedsmitigatione
of each impact with and without implementation
ecommended mitigation measures can be
measures. In many cases, the r
incorporated into the project to minimize impacts to insignificant levels.
The following project related cumulative 'impacts may not be reduced to
insignificant levels after mitigation;
The proposed project would encourage the development of approximately
270 new dwelling units in an area of prime agricultural land. Loss of
this agricultural land
would represent a 0.375 percent decrease in the
total amount of county land used for fruit and nut production. This
incremental loss and other incremeat t ntal
loregsses would be nal state andenationaldlevel
significant cumulative impact
eat would ,increase tha frequency and magnitude, of
The proposeusejcompatbility impacts with agricultural actio,ities to
adverse landp project area,
the north and west due to anticipated development in the'
the illogical pattern of land uses subject to the General Plan Amendment
' and the illogical; formation of the Greenline
The proposed `project would impact areawide traffic conditions Where
e improvements is not certain•
funding, for futur ,
id increase existing s'
The project fou East Avenue.
conflicts between bicycle
Pan
d for police se
edestrians and motor vehicles along
The proposed project Mould increase the deman
services.
Even though the $284600 fee would mitigate the project's incremental
impact, the County Sheriff's department Would still be understaffed to -
serve the county.
P indirectly aliex _additional, sewage to be
- The' roposed project would i
generated in the project area. The sewage treatment method has not been
proposed, by the project applicant's. Septic tanks or sewers may be
p s
' possi al e, but a"determination of the appropriate method for Waste
ated to the
d.sposal cannot be made serapelhavedy cbeenfmadeibysthe 1City of Chico and
Iii trate Action Paan an
Butte County.
The project Mould increase the demand for library ser"vices in Butte
County. Formation of a special funding source to support the library
syye 1
tela could be considered double taxations becauseptheneralibta system s
Terry,
supposed to be free according to the roariate lib*ary funding to
: 1986). Butte County must provide appropriate
mitigate this impact. -
The project Mould ihote;+.se the demand for parks and re
The
p program to mit'gate this
f aa3lities Butte Con'�y must adopt a funding P g
impacts
The followingproject related impacts
would not be reduced to
g ificant
insi n
levels after mitigation,:
- Development in the project area
would not be consistent
with the city's
and county's intent to encourage detrelopment in other locations
in the
iChico
Urban .Area.
- The amendment of the Chico Area
Greenline would foster
population growth
'
and would remove a constraint on growth in the project
vicinity.
If
ro ect is considered
According to the California Environmental Quality Ac .
t, a project
to 'be growth inducing rojeet could directly or indirectly foster
if theenp rowth. Extensions of urban services or
ati Amato
s
th or popul B erserved ar a ,
+� economic grout unserved ,or and
transportation facilities into previously
and other Projectswhichremove obstacles to growth or generate substantial
I' economic or employment activity would be considered growth inducing.
ect would indirectly foster economic growth and population
The proposed, prof increasing density to allow
growth in the Chico area in several ways.-, (1) by project area; (2) by amending
p sidebees to be developed in the
u to 270 new re to land
Chico Are2 Greenling to remove a he citainstand county'secommitment prime
",-be reducing the city
agricultural 'areas; (3) by (�}) by encouraging the
encouraging development in other areas of the city;
encouraging
Chico to oxtend urban services into a previously unserved area; and
City ent and business activity with
(5) by providing short term construction employm
installation of infrastructure and construction of new residences.
growth inducing since it would allow
Increased development density wouldecrban Area. The people whieli would
would
additional people to live :in the Chico II
increase the demand for
incrementally rowth, such as new businesses. Modification of the:
encourage secondary g gVe1osmenttranin othert on vareasent
are
Greenline could be an in that the existing
created by the Greehlinoe�nments,�rts to which wouldtencourage owners of similarly
not firm city/county c "
situated property
to generate pressure on decision mayers to .am
eind the.
Greenline"
Extension of urban services through infeastrudWre imtOw mit inducing
extensions
of urban service boundaries (annexation) is clearly B ikel limited
similarly situated prop
ernes would become more viable .or urban uses" to
temporary and 1 Y
Chico area. The growth
ustry would
tion
r eyed s
�pinesses and workersacts on the CalreadYdestablishPd bn theChi�gnificant+
bus
inducing impacts of the project would be considered
6-1
7
. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts are impacts; which are individually or incrementally minor,
but which, when combined with impacts associated with past and present
approved projects and other reasonable anticipated future projects, accumulate
to more substantial, proportions. The California Environmental 'Quali'ty Act
(CEQA) states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed When they are
significant and that the discussions shall describe the severity of ;the
impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the
discussion does not need to provide as great detail as is provided for the
project alone. The discussion is to be guided by the standards of
practicality and reasonableness,
The Draft EIR discusses cumulative impacts by utilizing the Chico Area
Transportation !Study (CATS) which is_an adopted planning document pertaining
to future development of the Chico Urban Area and by analysis of the project
as a percent of total growth both in the project vicinity, and general area.
The basis; from which the (CATS) projections are made are two scenarios which
contemplate development by the year 2000 and development by buildout of the
Chico General Plan Land Use Map. The CATS study is incorporated by reference
in Section 3.2 of this report. The analysis of cumulative impacts as a
percent of projected. growth is presented as follows.
The proposed General Plan Amendment and subsequent development of residential
uses in the project ,area could result in the development of up to 270
additional dwelling units and approximately 6148, persons living in the project
area (2.4 persons per dwelling unit)'. The addition of 648 persons to the
Project e 30 in CATS) would exceed the population
projected in the CATS for this area, by 31 percent for the year
2000and` buld' represent a six` fold increase in the number' of people. -added -in
this zone by the year 2000 (648 vs: 106). The proposed project would
represent approximately 47 percent of the total number of dwelling units and
approximately 15 percent of the projected' number of Vehicle trips which are
reasonably .anticipated in the project area (see Appendix 16.9). The total
project related population growth would represent approximately 0.86 percent
of the lowest projected total population growth anticipated with buildout of
the Chico General Phan Land UseMap.
The project's share of cumulative traffic, air quality, noise, and public
services demand impacts would be proportional to its increase in population
' growth. The project's incremental population growth is expected to occur
gradually in the future.
Mitigation measures for the significant cumulative impacts are presented in
Section 3. CEQA states that mitigation measures for cumulative impacts may
iWolve .only adoption. of ordinances or regulations rather than the impositions
of 'conditions on a project by project basis.
The :following eumulative impacts area discussed in Section '3 of the Draft EIR.
Loss of prime agricultural land to urban development and additional
adverse land use compatibility impacts,
Changes in Planned land ' g - P d uses and the related: weakening of the cityts
land use planning policy which encourages development in other areas of
Chico ;(growth inducement):
Additional traffic and related impacts such as noise and air:quality-
degradation in the north Chico -area.
- Incrrases in urban pollutant levels and nitrates
the north Chico area. in gods ;and wager in
Increases in the demand for public services
, including sewage treatment,
dater, -police, fire, schools, road' maintenance, parks, recreation
P
facilities, Libraries and hospitals.
Table 7-1 presents -a quantitative summary of the cumulative impacts of the
approved (but not occupied), proposed, and pending development projects
identortatxon system,
in Appendix 16.9). Due to the regional nature of the housing and
trans
P y tem the cumulative imparts of these projects are not
expected to be limited to the Chico urban area.
TABLE 7-1, QUANTITATI'JE SUMMARY OF CUtiULATIVE IMPACTS
APPROVED, PROPOSED,
PROPOSED AND PENDING
-DIPACTS PROJECT PR
OJECm.S(a) TOTAL
7-2
The relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the
maintenance and enhancement of a andductivity is environmentalften one of
impacts over time.
tradeoffs or balancing social, eroncmi
In some cases, a relatively short term benefit may have adverse cumulative
effects,; with the possibility that future generations and the future economy
rranted social and environmental costs (see Section
maybe burdened with unwa
7, Cumulative Impacts). ,The opposite situation, in which long: term benefits
occur at the expense of short Tech impactsofor this projeetpossible.
theDecisions
that influence the balancing
responsibility of Butte 'County as part of its 'policy making and regulatory
function.
The proposed xojectIs short term adverse impacts would result from
construction allowable aftects reinclude (1)proposedelosslof1pan rimeendmentagriculturewlands
' long term
adverse
nvolvemaauldreduction of the total overall capability for
which wouldi
,agricultural production in Butte County and could have an adverse impact on
agricultural support services,in the region, and- (2:) inefficient use of public
resources to serve low density development on the went side of the Chico Urban
Area at the expense of the attractiveness County tabllitY the CityoofaChicop
ment
te and
(see
of the east tide, as is ;encouraged by But Y
Section 3.1, band Use, Planning, Applicable Plans and Policies)..
e
r
70.
'E
_ FFECTS .NOT... FOUND It? BE SIGNIF'ILAAtfi
AY
L?ST OF COM2SENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR'
11.
The
following persons and agencies made, comments on the Draft EIR during the
Public Review period. The comments are presented in chronological order with...
the
most recent comments first, However, the minutes of the Public Hearing
are
presented last.
A.
Ohanian, John B., Chief Deputy Director, State Office of Planning and:
Research, May 23,'1986.
H.
01'Bryant 0 Dennis J., Environmental Program Coordinator, State Department
of Conservation, Office of the Directory May 19, 1986.
C.
Cussick Area Neighborhood Council, May 16, 1986•
D.
Loudon, Jeffrey M+, Chief, Environmental Branch, Department of
Transportation, May 9, 1986.
E.
Thompson, Robin G., Business Manager/Comptroller, Chico Unified School
District, May 2, 1.986.
.
Count
Department of Public Works, Butte County, April B, 1986:
G.
Hughes, Jerry, General Manager, Chico Area Recreation and Park District,,
April
Ii.
Tuttle; Laura, Associate Planner, :Butte CQunty Planning Department, June
27, 1986.
I.
Tutt le,-Lau~a, Associate Planner; Butte County P1'anning, Department,
summary of comments made on EIR daring public hearings and other comments
made during 'the comment period, December 16, 1986.
1 T-•1
�� THE RESOURCES AGENCY OF i-AUrOc,Nlh
g„ 0`Br ant TJennis_J. >r "v roninental Pro "ram Coordinator 19, 1986• " �
tor, May'ys�
1�
State De artment of Conservation Office of the Di
IAem0randum
Dole t
MAY 1 9 1986
Tc : Dr, Gordon F. Snow
Assistant Secretary far Resources Subjects Draft, Environmental
1 Impact Report, Bell -
\is. Laura Tuttle - Muir GPA n8- I
County of Butte SCH 84061909
1 7 County Center Drive
Oroti it e, CA 95965
Frctn Deportment of Conservotian—Office of the Director
1
The Department of Canscrwation isT responsible
Ment r also nitadministers oring ml the
1 conversion on a statewide basis.NVe
California Land Co ironmcntal tTmpactt Report t(DEIR) for ether project rBeferG
Draft Ern
• P a rioted
The Department, therefore, �fol�•e the conversion
Caunt� s 1 rc, offers tiic fol -
'or agricultural proposal ��'nul in
cnccd abo� a and hay a noted haat the
of prim �
loving comments.
1 The proposal would involve approximately 400 acres of agricultural land ' outside the Chico Greeniinc (urban dcvclolmerit
Which is Currently
of
I, r,.indary), I,t proposes the eatcnson o"f th'e grecrilinc to include the
f+re•jc'ct arca «#thin the current d tvclop0mel-tacra arcahomes aes he It 'con
`notion clear
B.1 apprr�sI'm atcly 270 acres of la
frc•m
Di=IR what additional agricultural_ land- canv:crsionmay°result as a
the:
secondary impact of the project.
that there arc a number of economic factors
The Di✓1R notes -(page 3.1-1) raiio is in the project a; ca.
which affect the viability of agricultural opc
1 B-.2 \�,e question the emphasis on the neSative andonAuaJitatids ve dcIailllturOn
anti
Also, we concur with
Qh�ratc onorrtics toC urrente agricultura:of. More luPredsctha the pro�ee.ta:uld magnify
your comment. (page 0) r�hich s gg lands
a e 3.1-1
!a. 3, and transfer problems related to nuisance to ad`accnt agricultural
dress the
B 'We recommend that the Find] Env'ironmcntal lmp�et including he adfollowl g
itt je of long -ter" land convcrsian impact )
m farm
information.
1 a t and or
The agricultural character of the gray be "Vete affec'by
ted tby the3ecconversion
nearby or surrounding lands Which m_S
� proses.
iva yields of craps grown.
Types and rclat
Availab lit} and qullitY of irrigation water
• y .
o Farmland COhNTrsion Impacts
s
7lte tjpe and ttrnount of farmland conversion; if any, that would
result in nearby areas f rorn implementation of the project,
in-
chiding potcritial Crop yields that would be lost.
The
proportion
of the County's tota'1 amlbd,�'c�Fi-',ar this con.
, 1►- 11 t
y version would represent.
t (�, �t t'r f� 't a •� ,
frli �+
�,,
Ur. Snow and T4s. Tuttle
rage ?
The proportion of the County's total acreage of those crops
currently , grow'n at the proposed site that this -conversion would
represent.
The growth inducing impact of the plan on other farmland in this,
arca or, Butte County.
The cumulative impact of the plan on other farmland in the
project area, as well as on Butte County as a whole,
W note that the discussion of proposed mitigation measures for the impact
of the 'loss of agricultural lanai fails to identify any feasible mitigation,,
\\•e suggest a ca'rcful identification of mitigation measures ould be useful
and necessary for the FEIR.
B_5 hill w
gat on measures and alternatives that ould lessen the agricultural
land coni crsion impacts of thisproject are;
Conversion of non4arml3nd to new farmland of equivalent quality and
qualitity elsewhere in the area.
Protection of other, g 'i on
cxrstin farmland' through the use of 11 Jll�amms
Act contracts, n uses on to -farm ordinances to offset
nuisance impacts o s' rbuffers, and
Use of s,.tbae ural orrrations,,
_ nu P f urban
neighboringagrtcult
and Vice versa.
t on .the DEIR, V,c hop"
The Duca farmland pconversion tcs �impactt and, 11'i1RII nAct
ctcanntrbact issues a;c
r
_q) \, cn th'adcquatc consr,derstion n t:he FE rthcr
c of fu
as`s•tanLc, plea'sc feel free to call ne at (916,) 3y?-SEi3.
DcnniS J, (J'Br, y'ani
Bnvironntcntai Program Coordinator
c�. s ephc� Oliva, Manager, Land Conxctvation Unit
y
C. Cusick Area Neightorhood
Couneil.p l-TTlh�PA-
.
6tu1h eb. CMft
MAY 191986
May 16 , 1986, Off, crifawk
To: Butte County
planning Depart trent
AWn: Ms.
Laura Tuttle
From: Cussck
Subject: Questions
Area Neighborhood Council
and Comment Re Bell-Muir Environmental
Impact
Report:
The Council is
pleased to have the opportunity to transmit
its reactions
to the draft ELR whose tonclusions would have
definite impacts
on our ,primary area of concern.
EIR Page Number Comment
C.1 2-5
i-
vie strongly concur with the mitigation pro
for narrow, sub-standard roads
C.2 2-6
We agree with mitigation measures proposed
with respect to the western extension of 'Eaton
Road. We suggest that access to the proposed
extension from the south should be ;Limited to
one point, e.g., Rodeo or Guynn to provide ser-
vice access for the subject area but not sub-
ional traffic f c service.
g'
C.3 2 -7J8
tie ed miti-
prunl�off, septic
2-8}
^
measuresrforlslltormhwater
& at�o n me
2-9)
tank Use, and for a planned sewage line eaten-
Sion into areas where future densities mandate
such facilities.
0.4 2-10
We concur with mitigation measures pr;oposedi
for fire protection.
Commentary regarding school facilities ex-
0,5
pans.on is inadequate as "it pro vides policy
making bodies, no guidance and ignores the purpose
of this M
C16 2=11
We concur with theproposed roads policy.
c'.7 2-12
We agree strongly with mitigation measures
proposed for library funding. A strong, adequate-
ly funded library system is essentia'1 for edu-
cat, otl of future generations As well as education
and cultural enrichment of the present adult
population in the Chico area.
c.8
Comments in the draft regarding recredtiob-
al facilities need to be expanded to directly
speak to such needs in the larger area west of
the Es lghAdt And north of Lindo Channel, It is
>Pvable thatone or more such facilities
conceL
-night properly be located within the study area;
-'should therefore be pldnned fors
1'2-6
r
-`-
rEIR
Page Number Comment.
c 9
3.2-4 We strongly disagree with the suggestion
that in order to relieve future traffic press-
ures on East Avenue, Lassen avenue should be
widened west of ,the Esplanade and extended to
E„R. 32. Introduction of through traffic into
the study area would defeat the objective of
A
low density, suburban residential development.
HYtoxcally, heavy traffic'Volumes on thorough-
,ifar,es higher
generate demands for permitting
densities alon tspch ar-eries.. le believe future
r
,-�
traffic needs can be met by making the Eaton
Road extension a restricted access facility,
and by apptopriate traffic contrls and channel-
ization on the Esplanade at the Eaton Avenue
and. Lassen Avenue intersections.
r C,loplanadehbeentomitted?,The
n of intersectionast Avenue anci
3.2-6
Es
the Esp
is already one of the most congested in the
region, and future development of major commer-
cial uses westerly of the existing development
will only exacerbate present poor levels of
C.11
service. Detailed analyses and traffic engneex-
r
ing studies should be made as these may set
growth. restraints on other parts of northwest
C.12
Chico. The
he i.nade uate tight-6f-wayfor East,the
Avenue east of the Esplaade and imits on
f
i rovement acheivable
amount of service level mp
th rough sophisticated traffic engineering are
r.
constraintsthis EIRconstraints must Pr operly address,
1
1
1
1
r
l�-�
`t. D Loudon, .%ffrey M., Chief Environmental `Branch, Department of Transportation;'
1986.
state 01—C-Pi1Tu DVis, TPana`portation & Housing Agency
M'EMORANDU'M -
TO: S,.ate Clearinghouse Date: May 9, 1986
Office of Planning and Research
Attention Pamela Mil]igan File! 03-But-32%99`
1400 Tenth Street P.M. 6.3
Sacrarr,_-nto, CA 95811 Bell-Muir- CPA
SCH No. 84061909
From: DUARTl�ZNT OF TRANSPORTATION' - Telephone ATSS' 457-449$
D:striot 3, ,P. 0. Box 911 r Marysville, CA 95901
1,
Caltrans, District '3, has reviewed the draft EIR for the Bell-muir
General Plan Amendmant and revision of the Chico Area Greenline. The
site lies between Bell Road and Highway 321. No specific development
plans are proposed at this tires.
D.1 Figu, 3.2-2 sho;�s two new, ince rch^asere.,n Highway
i99, one at Lassen
,•,o t n, a �i � 7
Avenae and orle at East 5th Avenue, mprovezients for
full build-out. There isnot sufficient room bet;aeen existing
lnter-chan€es at either location to allow construction of additional
interchanges._ These impi-over�nts are not physically possible,
n 2 The EIR references the District 08 Route Concept Report for Hishway 32
by s ;i ting that the' report recorm nds wid°nin& 8iE,hway 32 to three
lane's in this vicinity; The Route 'Concept P.ebort actually reco.wryends
i�ideninb to four lanes with bicycle lanes and left turn poekett,
Tris project is at the bottom of the Distriet's top ten priorities
for construction between 1990 and 1990. .
Page 3:2-17 states that '"appropriate fuming will be acquired from
FH A. and Caitrans... ".
b,8 Given current funding shortfalls; this is not a realistic s0lUU0n.
Funding may become available for those t'hi'gh priority projects
identified in the System Mahag_menPlan,, `dening, of
Highway32: Ho4ever other roadwayimprovementssrelied lUpon in the
)=1R are not scheduled for State and/or Federal funding 1n the
foreseeable tututei We recommend the County in cooperation with the
Cit of Chico consider a method to finance long-range measures
necessary to mitigate cumulative impacts;
any
A Y
s
12�
Y Chico bnif ied Sahool
E, 'Thompson, toh n G. Busii%eScs Mana es, .�.�ptroll r,
District, May 2, 1986:
CHICO UNIFIED SCHOOL -.-STRICT Co.�`-
1163 EAST SEVENTH SREET C
CHICO, CALIFORNIA 95928-59.99
( 916) 8 91.-3 0 04. �1AY 5 1986.
Oro* CW -
May 2, 1986
Butte
- Department
County 'planning _
Attn: Laura Tuttle
7 County Center:Drive
Oroville; CA 95965
SUBJECT: Pr E.I.R. for the Bell -Muir Property
Tuttle:
Neal -
Dear Mr • referenced development is located within the area ser edS y Ne
E.1 Tlie tele
Dow ElementarySchool, Bidweor
ll Junior High School a or residential
High 'School. aecaedntha� thisadevelopmentumber fwould eresunts lt lseniorgh�.g
unit, it is p 7 h
elementrary student -so 26.79` jun opet high
Section 65973,,
students. Please be advised, asp
the schools in the District are already overcrowded; however, Butte
County ordinance No. 2463 was h6setneeds should bed jo enable eDistrict adequatelytmeteet
elementary housing he and t t is antici.ateu chat the junior and
E.2 during thahlschoolssinotheol yDistrict will be able, in existing
Sett' ,
facilities, tg accomrtodate.'pro]Qcted enrollment increases during the
E.3 tipcomin�3 year. The school overcrowding is substantiated by comparing
the District's enrollment and increased numberments to thet'. " tudehtt isschool
' generated by proposed residential P
capacity data.
SchoolvEnrollment-Capacity Comparison
Total School; Enrollment
School -ected Enrollment
Capacities From Proposed Deyelo mp ants Difference
Grade Level
(Students)
026`
1,493 {
467)
1�
..Kindergarten
4x476 7,469
7-9
2388 3,6801 ►29`z)
10-1.2_
2,702
3;635 (933)
Butte county Planning Dep artment
May 2, 1986
Page 2
Given the current school attendance boundaries, the impact of propos>ed
residential developments on Neal Dow 'Elementary School., Bidwell
Junior High School and Chico Senior High School is as folloWsz
4 1. Neal Dow Elementary School can accommodate 76 additional
E.
students in specified grades and the proposed residential
developments in the school attendance area will generate 1.67
additional elementary istudents.
Eidwell Junior Highschool can accommodate 317 additional
E.S 2. proposed ill generate additionalthe
sttd--hts and the residential developments in
,
school attendance area w g
junior high school students.
E.6 3. Chico Senior High School can. accommodate 557 additional
t stude;nts and the }proposed residential devel&pments in the
school attendance C.�_a will g
enerate 484 additional senior
high school students.
E.7 The District is not opposed to approval of the referenced daVelopment
uant if said approvalis made condntthislregard, wetrequestan at of Butte
pUrs
E.8 County
ordinance No. 2463. that the
developer be required to place a notation on his fnal;map when_it is
filed stating that the issuance of residential building permits or
mobile home installation or hookup permits for residential dwelling
units is subject to the payment of school. fees pursuant to Butte
County Ordinance No. 243 and Resolution
No. 85-40.
�t
Sincerely, r--
hts Robin G. Thompson
Business
Manacrer Comptroil er
RGT:VVg
cc: Developer/Applicaht
Nei'1 McCabe
12=ii
H. Tuttle, Laura, Associate Planner, -Butte Counter, June 2 16`.
r
uta
uld
-��
LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAU 7Y
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROYILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397
PHONE
534•d601
June 27, 1986
Brian Kennedy
Earth Metrics
859 Cowan Road
Buxlangame, CR 94010
Dear Brian: arize co
mments made by the
This letter is intended to summ on the Bell -Muir Draft
June 25, 1986,
planning
Commission, Because of the nature
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
of their comments, a response should be prepared it
August 13, 1986 meeting provided -
�'- of the contract. arataon and
'The comments generated by the Notice of Prep
Clearinghouse should be addressed at this time. These
responses will be an addendum hg
rinthe DngEcosts. Aswe
short time line an to minimi P is prepared;`this addendum and
agreed; when the final ETR
all other responses to Comments will be incorporated into
the body of the document.
Since the staff designates in your response to the County's
Rvp on this project has not yet beenaringUtilized,
responsas to
expertise should be employed in p�- p ec'fically in the
comments in their particular field. foard toYrevewing the
area of drainages We are looking
Work of Barrett-Harr�.s. Your. proposalbPlanndic`ated they
would be retained to prepare a drainage
Specific comments made by the Commission and that need to
addressed are listed below:
' all i.nfrastrUdture necessary to Stipp
ort 1
be
acterdevelop!
evelo Ment. sal
page 23 of the contract stat
1 acre de p services of development and gene
IDiscuss publicsewers, storm
expected associated costs includ£ rand police
drains, water supplyr roadways,
protection, and other utilities and services"
Ii.l Submission of a drainage plan should answer many of
H.2 the Commissions concerns about drainage. Quantitative
data on. sewer improvements should .be submitted.
12-14
Brian Kennedy
Page Two
June 27, 1986
For example, location and size; of trunk lines are
necessary. In the event that the Brown and Caldwell
plan is not implemented, how will sewage and drainage
be accomodated
M It is suggested that all infrastructure improvements
be conveniently listed—in a table.
14.4 2. Determine the c 89t, of infrastructure.
The contract
(page 2.3) indicates Earth -Metrics will provide cost
estimates:,
H.5 it is acknowledged that there is a level of uncertainty
ih development plans and construction casts. Therefore,
differing scenarios and cost ranges can be given.
For example, cost of participating in a community wide
sewer system, or neighborhood sewage treatment system
(package plant)
1#.6 If septic systems are permitted, a 'typical system cost
per dwelling is acceptable.
9.7 Specific development layout and circumstances will
determine on. site infrastructure costs. Represents>tive
costs per linear foot for sewage, water and drainage
lines, etc. should be given
11.8 off-site improvements should be pro -rated on an acreage
basis and, based on benefit,:
h g Residents should be assessed a fair share of the costs
based on traffic increases or new residential units.
Improvements needed solely ;because of this project should
.be entirely funded by neighborhood residents. All
cost.-, should be listed in,A table.
3. How will improvements be financed?
11,10 This analysis is provided for in the contract (2-3).
brief
discuss'
ori of different types of districts, Powersand establishment ;procedures is acceptable. An alternative
mechanism is the "pay as you go" method with the provision
for reimbursement for oversize facilities.
4: The alternatives sections should be expandea to include
more specific information on impacts resulting from
r11 development of the entire 400 acresr
p dy
Brian xenne
Page Three
June 27,, 1986
Please indicate if additional mitigation measures would
this section should not require
be required, Expanding
more than 2page's
A no project alternative should be explored.
x.12
56 Mitigation measures should be more specific and not
i.e.
dependent on other actions being taken.
the.Brown and Caldwell may or :may, not
x.13
implementation of
That Possibility should be addressed.
occur.
about including Bell-
6. City of Chico should be contacted
6.
H.14
Muir in their sphere of influence, if they are not
to asp here change, connection to community
ameniable
sewer may not be feasible,.
7. Expand cumulative impact section to address effect of
other deyeloprnents in
this project when combined with
x.15
the vicinity.
x.16
focsen
The Planning Commissions comments `reallyYauru should
and cumulative impacts.
infrastructurerevisions
focus on these Issues as,we
r
mitigation
es�.n mit ig�
reel free to use your, initiative in suggesting g t'
_
development standards.
measures and devel p_
As you; know'; the Planning Commission has :requested this 'infor-
of the
13, 1986 hearing.
atiari for their August Seven copies
than August r 1986.
'
addendum should be received nO later
this timeline.
y, can meet
Please, let me knot! if you
'
S'ncer:ely,
r
r
Laura Tuttle
Associate Planner
LT : j mi* '
12�46
or comments made on LIR during; public hearinRs and 8EHer comments;m�ue~ur n�
the comment eriiod, December 16,
198.6.
Count,
IAN.D OF NATURAL WEAC'TH AND BEAU'Ty
PLANNING COMMISSION'
' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397'
PHONE: 534.4601
December 1 d, 1 9bb
Eri4an Kennedy
Earthl-letr i cs Inc
659 Cowah Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Clear Brian
Be„1-1�1uirSIklaam herebyrsendeingntooyoDecember
aesummary ofocommentshiad the
P� w-, discussed made on' ,
the document. The letter has four parts: a summary of comments made at
the pu.t, l I e hearing ; d s;umrr-ar-y tit Supervisor bd t ah ' s comments , a list Of
' my conments, and a lrst Of persons commenttng on the documerwt. All of
these- Comments will be responded to pursuant ':o your contract. The test
of the, document w I I f be arrrended'to reflect any changes In data or
coed i t I ons . rhe Planning Director shall rev r ew and appt-ove the
consu.itant's responses to Coffihen'ts prior to your malting the appropriate
ts�t revisions and printing of the 85 copies of the Final EIP. Section
a . d of the contract indicates that you will provide to us .3 copies o1
these responses to comments,
4.t to
a1lawing Is a 'summary of the public comments made on the document
the 86ard of Supervisors' hearings dated November 4, 198b and
l+iecember � y 1 9db,:.
Qr . Al. Beck
:1 1. • t he Gt-een l I he t I nd i ngs do not 600 1 Y
12 the lncrease in traffic and drainage as a resu-1t of the bell -Muir,
protect will not be as great as on the Arno ld-pacIfic shopping
dtthter which the Board approved on a Negative :Declaration :
Se t i d tanks ks are recoimmended 10t I tebd of community sewer.
IS P
12--1
;�.
x 4 ,1, iio mechanism is available to provide for police Patrol on a
mechan SMriS.eet basis. It is recommended that ;one targe district
prole
qye
be formed and res idente�1�str�cteto spreadrthercoststOfns
the use of a benefit assessment-_
dei"e I opment.
t. i n herse I f : "Mie Farm Bureau. Would not defend
,_e resen
T. 5 KarenyercrvsE Trac f i c; and drainage need to be
$e 1 1 -iv1u i r~ as agr i cu 1 tura 1 )and
studied..: problem i'
1.6Dara She -11 does not believe that there is a drainage
` ri the
Bei 1 -1,1u r r area .
,1.7 Frank E�razef_1 does not believe there is a drainage problem in the
Bell -Muir area. 1986 Board of Supervisors'
.conts de at the November �� They therefore do
hearing otheweremd�irected to the pro,jeGt and not the EIR.
�. not need to be addressed. 198b
The
following is a summary of oomments made at the December
Board or Supervisors' hearing.
A I
T n that a TUU -foot setback of residential uses from
-1. 1 he suggestion o
a r�cultural uses will limit the buildable area Qt the lots -
g suggested
what 1 s the t i rc i n9 of °devel opmerrt7 It i s after a
Y,9 2. Un Page 2-B' d to allow for a Prot,
sion that$
Ing be changeall Infrastructure
that the word
gl,ren Percentage of the lots have developed outs,
irtiprovemenns will be constructed.
ge sYstem
1Ci a'. He
does'hot feel that an underground drainage adequatesdracnagery
and would Prefer to see the conditron
system be provided for. . `year storm
drainage to' accommodal.e a 1 0:0
I.'71 4. He commented that requiring ested that Portions
i unusual. R more reasonable Standard, in his op►nion, is
Providing for a 10- to 20-ye6rba sans. for tdrainage Is W2 Ater
of parcels be used as holding is
He. cortimented that the requirement to sewer` the properties
excessive
n is interested in hydrologic data
Indicating that 1-ac're
J ne Clo - or
15 de e.loPment on septic tanks Wl11 not contamlhate the groundwater er
overload the soils. ..., the,
he t
atrols`should beundin9deorfrom the lis
exc
.1G A_ Ge'tk Ind! Gated that police p gists thatothe f an assessment
of rti i t i gin l on measures . He .�iJg9
infrastructure improvem
encs be provided for
through
di"strict.
2
15 Frank Brazel-L indicated the: area is "already developed" and do€>� riot
have a
drainage problem,
.16 Joe eurrei1 commented t:rat a sewer system, drainage system and sidewalks
are not normally required on development with a parcel size of 1.01
acres.
�17Lillian Hersr�� in 'l commented that the existing A-5 zoning is
Lillian 1 1 i an Werschburca cght of the more intensive zoning allowed on i=ast
Avenue
�11. Dolan:
8
Jane
he project description, is incorrect in that the alternative area
encompasses more than 400 acres.
1.19 2. The recommended agricultural setback is unclear and needs to be
rewrrdrsd to sp;ecl+icallY state that it applies to the perimeter of
individual parcels or the perimeter :of the alternative project area.
1.20 3. The property is outside of the Nitrate Action Plan. No statement
has been ,made whether 1 acre on septic tank complies With said plan.
121 4 '"
On Page �"4, eliminate the. hourly IImits on farmers. The impact of
con+lidting land use and the suggested mitigation measure.-: are
unclear and infeasible. This is an area where a f+nd►ng will have
to be made on incompatible land use.
.22'5. All cost j!vgures should 91ve a source and year.
21 eaw 1 do traffic, ' coni i t i ons are significant.
f1 i ti gat i on miasure
�. Ar
-- suggesting the use of +edera l fiend i n:g is not adequate, AA l ternalo' i ve
,� , d.)pt i ng
rr► i t i ga., r on measures ��u`st be ander Ui�e control of the body a
the document.
The fol 1 ow i no a* re tfay comrents based on the naso i is Of the pui:7 i i c hear i np,
process and pl'ev
ious memos to your firm
+z4 1, The total e*panded pro,Ject arca is croser to 480, acres rather than
4 a 0 'acres
I.25 2. As noted i n prey ous memos.; maps need to be changed on the
ollowln
g pages: i- 1-4 3.i-5;�1-12 3�?=10� 3.4-2
1. 26 nr+ Page 1-50 thange "a sewerage study" to "the Nitrate Action
F'1 an.
IiV 4i Coes the table found on mage 1.:2-i assume 400 acresI How were
these f i t_auret derived?
. 28, 5. Typos were f ound oh -+ ht ft)l 16W ng pages second' paragraph,
"i n f'rastructUre" ; =2, first paragraph, I' i rhd'i v 1 dug l " q 2-2; second
paragraph j. drop "'SPE!" ; ado' ''to" after "ab i 1 l ty•' i' 2-7; second
paragraph; `• ve` `, 2-9 * ':der i rab 1 l i ty" f 3.8-bo f ourth paragraph,
"a l mt-�sto ° 3. =i b, second paragraph; "reso l ut i on . `''
1
Page 2-5-1change not significant" to "potentially significant,
noting that the mitigation measures are infeasible."
UO
7.
Pale 2-11, the reference to the 1,00-year,storm should be clarified
to read'; "The minimum pipe size is to accommodate a 10 -year stormy
however no flooding of ,ho,ases and no more than one-third of the
road trom the curb to centerline shall be inundated during a
lou -year storm."
31
a.
-11, concerning the groundwater monitoring, 1n the event that
page 2-1
subsequengrbundwaiter monitoring Indicates that there, is
t
contam i na't i on what wcu 1 d be the result? We Would have permitted
development at a given density and then after the fact gone in and
required sewer. The preferred alternative is to determine at what
density the soil and groundwater will not be contaminated and
proceed from there.
3
y.
On Page 2 12j was the cost of the sewer extension basr,�,-i on the
Rolls, Anderson and Rolls figures? Supurvisor Dolan indicates that
costs now being discussed between the City and the County would'
IndIcs�te that a sewer extension could cost as much as $15 million„
l'he cost in the document of a $3 -million 'trunk extension seems
artificially 16w.
�p,
33
ID.
- Page r �-'i �?-: the Board. of 5u ery i sots on December 2 1 �t3�^, approved
an increase in t"1e scho,'.)I fees to $0.80. per square f oot f or-
rresldential
residentialstructures.
I:34
ii.
Page 2-17, why didn't the do! 1ar per acre change. under the annual
c «,:-t` for ";scenario 1 and 2^'
1.35,
0=-t,e . ! - i , wl i 1 the change, in the pro teat area of fect the number-
umber1:36
1636
table
13.
Page change the .
3i
1 �# .
- : ";Sce Appendix 161,16 f or� revisions."
`Paye �. 1-�, note on the map
I.3E
15.
Page .3.1-6 and . h' -8, amdhd the d ► seuss i on , 1-o w i t : "The Green l i h&
tic^r'c1es do not aPPlY In the Bell Muir area: aee memo and: mot i'on."
39
46
Page 8.1i�10, el Iminate "anti zor+ing designations an."
• 40
1'7.,
Page 3.1-'11, change the Greenline discussion, no finding's will be,
hecessary,,
41
i d .
Page . ! - i .3 , e5<pand the discussion Gn ther i oP l ementat i ori of the
200 -foot s�ttback to i rid I catO thAt l t Could cin l Y be app l l ed to the
periMeted the expanded project 2rea along Bell and Muir AverU
1..21 2
i
42 19 3.2-7, the extension of Lassen Avenue to. Highway 32 is
�. Page.2-',�,
inconsistent with the adopted County Circulation Element. Tf the
exte, ft I on i n a recdocument
endatton of the consultant it would require an
amendment
1.43 2o• Page 3.2-167 first Paragra h,. hav Lassen and Henshaw Avenues
F
e West
been excluded?
1.44 21. Page 3.2-i1� the suggestion that pedestrian crossings be corisidered
is not very specific as to type or location. Discussions witi`h
5upervisorGolan would indicate that the only pedestrian crossing
i which would be suitable to Jay Pareridge. School ,would require a
walkway. The cost and feasibility of doing
constructed elevated .
this may make the mitigation measure Infeasible.
1.115' 22„ Page 3.3- , note that three wells have been tested 1 h the area as
part of the Nitrate Action Plan.
4� the position statement from Supervisor Dolan refers to
1.46 23: Faae 3:,
the Brown and Caldwell plan, not the Rolls, Anderson and Rolls
study inferred in the document
,... Area is well-ing units per ace
. 47 2.} r
Page .� .3-b e the current standard of three d
on septic systems within the Ch co Urban Ar temporary.
t25: Pa iy th the statement that Bell Muis
48-end ._paragrapK five w i
outsideIof the Browr and Caldwell plans for sewer and drainage
facilities.
I
.49 26. Page 3-.4-a,
change the second-to-the-last si'ntence to read, "The
but wi11: be compatibl'd with the Rolls, Anderson and Rolls
pl
drainage
b
plan, b
i.5q 2r. Para raph; change language to read, "have adopted
lAge 3 `
the Board has recently increased the
an ord`inance,"' Last sentenc%�
tees.
.51 �!a Page 3.4-10 reflect the change in the fee schedule.
Page 4-1, seca�nd paragra+h, e'1iminate •'and zoning designations."
1,52 29 5
ji53 30. Page 4-2� the.a panded project area i s 430 acres, not 400.
I.54 31 r Page 5-1 does `thts rev t sed fee schedu a in i t i gate the impacts?.
rAs we 6.1scussed at the bacember 2 Boar'ci hearing, 1 have met with
Super^v i sor 6016h to 'take her -comments on the document. The Board'
+, ` ting as a 'mochanism for the supervisors" comments to
authorized his mee
be mad:: and addressed. I am f oriaard i nib them to you for response.•
5
12.-�1
i�
S5 1 Page 1-1, first paragraph, second sentence, please change to reads
�.
"The project area involves approximately 270 acres within a larger -
4:3.0 -acre neighborhood bounded by, Bell Road,...
1.56 2 Page 2-2, the feasibility o1 state and federal financing i
uncertain Programs;, such as UGAV-and EUA have been cut,• the others
will probably be cut In the future. By policy, benefit assessment
districts are only used when the issue is one of public health. A
redevelopment area is not on the negotiation table with the City of
Chico.
t57 3 Page 12-3, add the following information. Adoption of the project
as, ,proposed would require amendment to the following regional
Iplans: the. sewerage plan, the storm drainage plan, school needs
studies, Chico Urban Area Transportaiton Plan, Sutte County
Circulation Element, LAFC6's Spheres of Influence, the Nitrate
Action Plan, and the financing plans for 61-1 of the above,
Approval of the project would constitute a departure from the
adopted land use pian and reverse a policy which took ten years to
achieve. -
PIN
>�58 4. Page 2-4 clarify the 200 foot setback
• g- + recommendation, and
eti;minate noise contrct and hours of operation limits on farmers.
11.59 5. Page 2-5, the buffer concept could only apply to Muir Avenue and is
determined to be infeasible as -a m-tigation measure for the entire
area. It Is, therefore recommended for elimination.
U.60, 6., Page 2-6, doncernin.g the cost for roadway realignment, abandoning
and acquiring`
rhmore
complicated and costly
than described. Foexample, thereare exiting trttures
in the
xray of some proposed realignments, such as Nord, Rodoo and Henshaw,
and the. Grange Hall. The land acquired versus the land abandoned
IS not equal in ;"cost: There are legal procedures which are
required to abandon righty -of -way:
I,61 it js suggested that more inlcernal circulation be developed, such
as considering dead -egad streets and the ldentlflcation of one 'main
road to connect the ne;ghboirhood to Eaton This road would bisect
the neighborhood and w6fild require future designs of subd visior'is,
to back up onto the road rather than have direct access. 'These
types of recommendations Would require an amendment to the
Llrculatioh Element. The most feasible road to connect to Eaton is
Guynn
11,627 7 Page 2'-8; on the t i m i ng prov is i6n , e I i m 1 natd the prov i s I on th i-
bidpartinent' of Pub I I c works det-corm i hes when the I mp -6-y6 nen"ts sre
installed. There are other mechanisins for lnstalIImg the
Improvements, such as lot by lots with relmbursetnent agreements;;
areawlde district; as property deve"lope with payment of pro rata
Share to remainiRs3 improvements; Ivhsn 5px 6f the properties h0e
-pubd I v i ded to the; Minimum acreages, by Bbbrd card i nahce, etc,, I f a
percePatage figure Is going to be used to tri {ager improvements, we
could do
it a humher of dlfferrent Ways; by forcing payment from that
6
12424
,
undeveloped properties after 50 onathedCapitaldImprovementtlProgram
by requ i r `i ng that area roe d90
after a certain percentage has
devel'c?ed
and Bel 1-Mu;i r Roads wou 1 d' not tie
.63 b, Page 2-iia the mitigation measure of pursuing state funding
impracti'ca1. weo dthis alreadyg All roads will need private
io
considered a high-priorltYPa -
ct is not mitigated.
funding sources or the rr�'der another east-west
ld be app o cons road like the
z.64 9i
: It wou
ropriate te circulation.
Lassen Avenue ext
erasion, to improve
vhcl
the bike impacts and
nflictof athss aridbthe5elkesashould�beeS are
signficant. ,
1.65 10'. Pag_G -y
iWe need better' bike P
detlned would be
as noted Previously,
1.66 11. Pedestrian crossing at Jaar►darT
is therefore not feasible.
ark expensive undertaking
2-1CJ, mitigation measures ori a, site-by-site basiswon't
1,67 page -solutions such as
1the Nitrate
mitigateoandadrainageetrenches'haveabeenaProhebted by
dry s
well
Action Plan.
e. 2-.11, the solution, to nits^ateocontamination houldsbehuti'lized to
68 13, Pag.
" = i nstol 1 at i on of sewers. !-�yi�rogeol 9 t cause n;i tratethenbl Bins
Set development
mthe situation onsitiesif'dev�lopent, monito'rin9+
This the
fact-
Installation of sewers aFtet-
.69 14. Page 2-1 2, the project
•11.re9uire an amendment to the titrate
ro eLt w
ActionPlan.
2-12) may not permit, a wouldnew rhavdttoebeoWith them .
T.7U 1.�, uhk
Page the City tY
If the pro'Perty;is to sewer, then it
of the City of Chl
Y to, in accordance with the oro►^tn and
concurrence a property Would have to become part,
Caldwellplan. There#ore,to make these'
of the Brown and Caldwell sttlY area. The financing
t �"
chahges in the P1 an )s unkno-n' aeVelQpment trends ;and
T' y 3' t -11' 1 the 'd i scugs i on on urbansummary as a
71 16.. page
t needing mi'tlgation
patterns should been forwarded into the
U� coral. i
mP
srgn�f ct alternaland use study no
tive is the incorporation of the
L 7� 17. Page 4"a, 'another prate
Bell-l`loir properties into the West East Avenue k
10 protess . document to reap: y ::�'leinb From S),�pery i sor
Page 1 ; reti t l e the
Iementotion Program
poi an to to Board of SUprPlanrs �utiln►g an Imp
f or the trate Act'i G•
1� RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT EIR
s Doses address the comments presented in Section 12 of this
The following respEIR
report• The responses which required revisions to the text of the Draft
refer to the appropriate portions of the text Where the revision(s) have
occurred.
A OHANIAN� JOHN B• CHIEF DEPUTY'DIRECTOR STATE OFFICE OF PLANNxNG AND
e RESE_ ARCH,TMAY 186
A.1 Standard Final EIR Procedures. The comments are noted.
NT DE2JNIS J• ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR STATE DEPARTMENT OF
B. _BRYA MAY 19,.1.9$6.
CON^ SERVATION, R'
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTO
A ricultural Land Conversion. See Section 3.1, Land Use,
B 1 Secondary r mpatibility impacts.
Planning, Applicable Plans and Polices, Land Use. Co
g,2 u;antitative and ualitative Data on A ricultural Ecoaomi'cs.. The
qualitative statements on page 3•,-1 of the Draft EIR identify positive and
negative conditions which,
affeo the economics of agricultural uses in the
project area. The negative conditions are not emphasized, but are identified
to Illustr.�ate the applicant's etc�thetdiscussionitative tof Agriculturel
a, including res.
in production, and yields, have perspective -
been
Characters of the Project and Vicinity. in Section 3.1: of the EIR. (See
also the Response to Comment B4.)
_ and Ad scent A r-icultural.Lands� the concurrence is noted.
B.' Nuisances
B.4 Information to Desc
r tie Lon Term Oarmland;Conversion Im act. Each of
P comment have been discussed in Section 3.1 of the
the points raised by this
EIR. Refer to the following parts o£ Section 3.1: Agricultural Character of
the Project Area and Vicinity, Loss of Agricultural Land, and Land Use
Compatibility.
ad Coneriong,� Miti�ationcomment re -
'Measures for Aarieu]J Lbenaddedvtosthe•EIRhe Tho measures
quests that three new mitigation measures
' are as follows:
I. Conversion of nonfarmland to new farmland of equivalent quality and
quantity elsewhere in the area.
farmland through the use of Williamson Act
2+ Protection of other; existing
contracts.
Use of 'setba'cks; buffers, and right -to -farm ordinances to offset
30 ricultural operations,
nuisance impacts of urban arses on neighboring ag
and vice versa.
The first and second measures are the coordinated responsibility of the City
of Chico, Bute County, and private landowners, but cannot be implemented by
e EIR. third
as conditions of apPrO' off th the proposed p
the developerroject► The
3
m6Adure has been -added to Se..ticn
1�-1
' C. CUSSICK AREA COUNCIL. MAY 16, 1986
C:1 Mitigation for Narrow Substandard_ Roads: The concurrence is noted.'
C.2 Mitigation f
or Eaton Road Extension and Access from the Project Area.
The concurrence is noted. The engineering and planning of the Eaton Road
Extensiou are functions of the City of Chico ;and Butte County Public Works
Departments. The recommendation for one access point to the south for local
service is noted.
C.3 Mitigation for Stormwater Runoff,'Seetic Tank Use and for a Planned
Sewage Line,. The concurrence is noted.
C.4 Mitigation for Fire Protection. The concurrence is noted;
C.5 Adequacy of School 'acuities Exeansion_Discussion The Chict Unified
School District has reviewed the Draft ETR. Their comments are presented in
Section 12j Comment E.
C.6' Proposed Roads Policy. The concurrence is noted,.
C.7 Mitigation for Libraries. The concurrence is noted.
CindeRecreation The1lackeofid Larger Area nest of the E'solanade and North of
L Channel.
creation facilities in this area is noted.
Butte County is working on a means to collect fees for site acquisition and
faclity'development. Acquisition and development of parkland in this area is
not likely without a source of funding. Refer: to Comment G from the Chico'
Area Parks and Recreation Department.
C.9 Lassen Avenue Extension. The Lassen Avenuo Extension 3,s proposed in the
Chico Urban Area Transportation Study (CATS) and is not a required mitigation
contemplated he s, project. The proposed density o'' tho dev616pment
measure for theproposed
p g - n Avenue Votild not 'necessarily prevent ',the con-
struction of the Lassen AVenoe Extension, but the limited funding availablefrom such development could rdake the public costs for the extension 'prohi-
bitive
rohibitive without density inez'eases. Future improvements to the CATS analysis
(constraints assumptions and land use density changes) should refine the
feasibility and need for the Lassen Avenue Egtensa,c' (refer to Response to
Comment -i.4p- for additional, responses related to the Larsen Avenge Extension).
Colo. Level o
,.� f Service at East/Esplanade Intersection. The level of service
of Esplanade and East has not been calculated by the City of Chico or Butte
CoUnty. Based on observations the level of service at this location is LOS C
ori LOS D (see Table 3.2-1):
C._11 Traffic Studies, for East Avenue/EsP!&nade intersection and Growth
Constraints in.Northwest ..Chico. Chico Urban Area `Traffic
y Tidentifysthefrequired improvemehtt 'necessary
to Stud and future amendments is to id
projectmondate p Ethis interseetionwwoulii the Chico Urban Araa. The impact of the
of significantly alter the existing level
of service after recommended mitigation.
13-2
commenRiistnoteday .Constraints Along East Avenue.
C. ,_ East of EsplP.nade. The
This improvement is not required directly as a result of
the proposed project, but is proposed as part of the 'CATS, Future improve
mentis to the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions, land use density changes)
will refine the feasibility and need for this improvement.
D. _ LOUDON, JEFFREY M., CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, MAY 9, 1986
D.I. Feasibility of State Route 99 Interchanttes with. Lassen Avenue and East
5th Avenue.. The comment is noted. Neither of these improvements are required
directly as a result of the proposed project, but are proposed as part of the
CATS. Future improvements to the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions, land
usedensity changes) will refine the -feasibility and need for these
interchanges.
D.2 pDistrict Route Coneept Report for State Route 32. The comment is noted.
The y would require improvements identified in the
Dist:ricteRoute Concept Reportfor State2:
_ Route 32 (see Section 3,2).
D.3 __Financing of Long Range Measures Necessary to Mitigt to Cumui2tive'
_mpaicts. The Draft EIR states that "Measure identified in the Butte County
Ciretlla.tion Element should be implemented,.as necessary, to acquire
appropriate funding from developers, FHWA and from CALTRANS for appropriate
traffic mitigation measures identified in the CATS and in the Draft EIR. (See
Response to Comment I.,63 14hieh also addresses this issue.)
E. THOMPSON, ROBIN G., BUSINESS MANAGW COMPTROLLER, CHICO UNIF
IED SCHOOL
- ,DISTRICT► MAY 21986
' E.1 tiLd nt Generation and Overcrowding. The comment is consistent with the
statements made 'in the Draft EIR, The comment is noted.
E.2 Capacity Versus 1986=1987 Enrollment wli. Junior and Senior.Hiah.Schools.
The comment is noted.
E.3 .Substa.ntiat ion of.Ovdrorotiding. The comment $A noted.
E '4 _.Capacity of'_Nea1 Dow School. The comment is noted, The Draft EIR states
that this impact is significant even after 'mitigation.
E.5 Ca acit.v of Bidwell Junior Hiah
�.._._.. School. The comment is noted.
E.6 tAlPheity of Oleo Senior High Sd.hool. The comment is noted,
' Er Z The District Position on PtO.Jedti The; request is noted.
E.8 BUtte.County Oedinance.No. 2463 and Resolution No. 85-40. The request is
noted.,
Refer to Comments 2.33, 2.44, 2:50, I.51, I.54 and 2.66, which address issues
related to schools.
13-3
F.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS BUTTE COUNTY APRIL 8. 1.986
ed. This annexation is not proposed by
F. 1' Annexation to Chico Urban Ase�at The recommendation for annexation of the
area into the
Chico Urban
Area i
the applicants and hassn onbconcernseen uorethenrequirements ofthis document itheeCalifornia,
Agency Fomnation Commi s. Project Description)-
Environmental,
escription). Specific
e Section 12,
datarregardingRtheity Act provisioneof public services and utilities is provided in
' Section 3•41 Public Services.
Se
Road Standards. The comment is noted. See the mitigation measures in
Section 3.2 of the'ETR•
ER
CHICO AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
G_HUGHES JERRY GENERAL MANAG
APRIL ,1986
G,1 Concurrence with Mitigation. The comment is noted.
G. Si nif�.eanc._ of Park and Recreation ImeG tsL The Draft EIR states
the
�' if .
following regarding impacts to parks an
Parks and Recreation• Development under the proposed project would
par), and recreation s. r 6 » ��•
incrementally increase the demand for
Although the project related incremental demandpactforoparks oand erecreation
d
significant, the cumulative increase in
ificant and would add to the need for in lieu fees
would be considered sign
for new pr6jects.
The Elia also states that the recommended "In Lieu Fee" program and development
Natural Resaurces._and Recreation Element for the County General Plan would
m a N ' recreation could also be mitigated
on arks and r d with
mitigate the project s incremental impact to an insignificant ate
Cumulative impacts P
C
implementation of the recommended; measure.
G.3
Natural Resources and Recreation Element. The comment is noted.
G.4 CARD Facilities. The comment is noted.
H. TUTTLE LAURA ASSOCIATE PLANNER BUTTE COUNTY.
JUt7E 2� 6
Specific requirements for drainage are; identified in
H.1
Drainage Plan: SPP
Section 3.3; Geology and gyrdrology, in the EIR.. >See also Appendix 16.10 «
Spific: require
H.2 Quantitative Data for elder IinArot,ements• �Public Serviceseand for
wastewater`disposal are discussed in Section 3•�,
Utilities, in the EIR,
App
en
endix
See I�insro�rements. See Table 2.1-2 and ApPciit 16 ►1 Q .
H.3 List.. of Irfrasti ucture o
H.0 Cost Estimates, See Table g,l-wZ and AIppendik 16-AQ6
The comment
H•r Uncertaint and Use ore identifiedScenarios
briefly inand
Sectiona2.1 under Summary
is noted. Uncertainties a
os and cost ranges are utilized where
of Mitigation Costs. Differing scenari
baseline
a ro P r:Late. The report must focus on evelopment scenarios
(.1986:) conditions to avoid '
cu aon. Analyses of the various -combinations of d
speculation. n
For
would not provide readers with enough, accuracy to aid in decision"making.
example, sewer service costs will vary annua lyensitY,andtas specific engineering
'regional and areawifr: development
desigyear.
requirements identified during the
H.6 Cost `for Se tic 'Tank Systems. Septic tank systems would be considered
D
ther 'than areawide development
part of individual site developmenteCoodstoaeost approximately $1,Qpo each.
costs. Septic tank , systems are,e P
He resentative Costs. See Appendix 16.10.
H.8 01'f Site Im rovement Costs Prorated on n A6rea a Basis and Based on
Ben_ efits. See Appendix 15,.10. Off site imp
costs as"ciated with
traffic Mitigation requirements were
prorated based on traffic increments.
H. Fair Share Assessments ,and List of Costs.See Table 2+1-2;
o^_Furding Mechanisms. See Section 2.1 and ,appendix 56.12•
H.1.1 Ex anded Diseussion,of Alternative IbvRlvn" !e00 Acre,". See Section,
4«2 Expanded Project Area Alternative,. and Appe�I'16.10'6
n
H.12 No Protect Alternative. The No Prs�en.•� Alternative is discussed i
ctlon
. 3':2} 3' 3, and 3 for revised
H.13 Specific MitiRationp See Seor,ions 3' 1
mitigation measures. Feasbilit"'.of C
onnectin .to the_Com-
H.14 Chico S hereof Influence and newr_ system is not required at this
munity Sewer. tem Connection to .the
time6
The City of Chico Would not be ez" ed to modify its 5prds of
Project area
Influence if the
project area were to derrb,�'sp 'with rural standards (Road
. zks, and no stormwater infrastructure)
Standard SRS -1, septic to
development under urban standards wouldeIDbutvwould hot bguaranteehsuch ha pity
councilwouldapprove of a sphere Bhang , m,
iieci:3ion+ However, if the project were to connect to the city sewer syste
the city Mould require a, sphere change:
ty
Connection to the city sewer is not likely be`areasUse tandhishe i�nefmay enot sbe
Avenue line is dedicated'to other deve],esult a The bngineer
on i,n this area has hot been st ed
able to se�iitarofsa o liftimprovement
as 2 result of the temenen studied it
ing feasib y an equivalent capacity improv t would be req.
a system were feasible, the connection: The fnsibil
within another portion of the system to justify
ityy of such an improvement has riot beer 'studied:
�at�L�te ,C_'' - , . See Section 'i fora revised discussion d:
cumulative impacts.
13-5