HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 18 OF 212. SUMMA
RI
■ 2.1 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES,
■ Summary. of Impacts and Mitication`Measures. The investigation conducted; for
this report included an examination of the environmental, impacts. The major
project impacts are summarized in Table 2.1-1• The significance of each
impact is noted along with the required or recommetded mitigation measures.
The significance; of each impact with and without mitigation is also noted.
The following impact categories are used in Table 2.1-1: beneficial impact;
(;NS) not significant iupact; (PS) potentially or possibly significant impact
(an impact which cannot be precisely assessed at this time) and (S)
significant adverse impact.
Summary of Miti9Ation Costs. Table 2.1-2 summarizes the approximate cost of
the required and recommended mitigation measures for the proposed project and
Expanded Project Area Alternative. Appendix -16.10 presents the methodologies
and assumptions which were utilized for estimating the costs of recommended
mitigation. Tho costs reflect 1986 dollars and conditions.Each cost is
based on the assumption that buildout would not be staggered. Some mitigation
requirements for the Expanded Project Area Alternative apply to the proposed
project despite the lower overall density. In this case, the improved logic
stability of
P
LnAclnidentified a
compared totheproposedproject. Allostsate worst caseestimatesbased on
consultatioris with public officials and engineers. Field checking by a
professional engineer Mould be required'to refine cost estimates for
infrastructurep such as sewer and water systems when more specific development
plans are proposed. Cost estimates for infrastructure and public services
should be expected 'to -change in the future as a response to inflation and -
as water sewer lateral to individual parcels, would be added to those costs
changing conditions. Costs associated with individual site develo menti such
identified in Table 2.1-2.
The fixed and annual costs for required and recommended'mitigition are
presented in Table 2.1-3 tot tout development scenarios (two for the proposed
project and two for the Expand Project Area Alternative). A portion of the
fixed fees would be returned as Cal Water purchases the $775,000 water system
and as existing, and future developments connect to the 'water, sewer, and storm
drainage system improvements.
Methods 'for equitable distribution of costs should be defined by Butte County
(refer to Appendix The timing of future .projects in
the area will
create cost variations; particularly with respect to traffic improvements,
which are based on a pro rata share of trips through an intersection or along
a roadway: the cost analysis refleeta development eand tions in 1986.
Three timing meohanisms can be used for installation of .improvements..
1)install improvements and collect fees to recapture costs when development-
occurs; 2) install improvements and require payments immediately; and 3)
collect money anti ihstall impr�ovements'vith available money. Some Combination
of these methodologies is also feasible+ The improvements should be installed
as required by the Director of Public Works for Butte Couhty. Contributions
could be made based on &tea(Acreage) lineal feet of frontages nUidber of rooms
in a dwelling unit or 'contribution to impact (trafficy sewage)+
-1
Potential financing mechanisms may .include the use of assessment districts,
redevelopment, federal and state funding, or direct contributions from
developers and/or property owners. County staff is familiar with the
establishment procedures and limits each of this mechanisms. Assessing
additional property taxes to parcels within a given district that would
benefit from a public works project is a common tool for financing individual
arerelatively limited, so as not to adversely burden property► owners in thejst useful when project cost
aro
projects. Typically, assessment districts are most
district:
Inclusion of the project area withim a ;Redevelopment Area would allow the use
of tax increment financing for a pedvements. This financing method
freezes the property tax base at the year, of establishment and allows the
Redevelopment Agency to collect increases in property tax revenue above the
base amount for a specific periodof years. The feasibility of redevelopment
would depend specifically on the ability to make specific findings regarding`
area blight the necessity for redevelopment, and the economic feasibility of
the redevelopment funds to finance needed improvements, The formation of a redevelopment area in this location is not beingdiscussed at the present time,
by the city and county
Saveral state and federal sources were created for possible assistance in
financing project area improvement, including Urban Development Action Grants
(UDAG) U.S Department of Housing and Ur�tLn Development (HUD) Housing
Assistance, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), gasoline tax funds, <`
Federal Aid Urban (FAU) Funds, and Economic Dt�velopment Administration (EDA)
grants. However, UDAG and EDA have already been out and the others may be out
in the future. Butte County and the city of Chico are currently participating
in some of -these 'programs. -Due to bath the -competition and current reductions
y gi p should not rely
in the,availabilit of such fundin ttxe proposed improvements vements
on a significant share of funding from these programs.'
.
_ The county, could also seek direct contributions of land and funds from
developers and property owners to assist in financing project area
improvements that benefit their developments and properties. However, county
policy restricts the formation of benefit assessment districts for purposes
other than public health. The extent of developer and property owner
to future residents `through increased
costs incurred
p
articipation is uncertain and probablylimited b
developmentbe passed, neo ardize the feasibility andeaOmphase prices. High
costs could
j P d Fur',, competitiveness of the
area�s r�lP iy
ntribution amounts would be
subject tonegotiationsbetween ButteCountyLand
the developers or property
owners.
The defining of an equitable distribution of costs between on site and off
site benefactors is tho responsibility of Butte County.
2.2 ALTERNATIVES' EVALUATED
The No Project Alternative and the Expanded Projeet Area Alternative are
evaluates; in Section 4 of this report. Under the No Pt,-oject Alternative, most
of the impacts of the proposed project would be avoided be substantially
reduced. However, the No Projeet Alternative may not 6a a Iona terms alterna-
tive'due to certain existing anis planned growth inducing activili;es who will
2-2
1
affect residential demand in the project area. The Expanded Project Area
Alternative
would involve a larger area and additional parcels allowing _devel-
opment of 350 new residences (80
more residences than would be allowed under
the proposed project). This alternative would incrementally increase the
g
significance of most impacts. However, thisralternativethould be considered
more logical and stable than the condition
®
Y proposed project.
2_:_3 AREAS OF, CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED
The Butte County Plannig,epartmentas identifedand use and planning,circulation
water,quality, hydrology d Publicservices as areas of
controversy and potentially significant
environmental impacts to be addressed
in this EIR (see Appendix 16.1). Public concernp
radin resdonse
information provided in th.e Draft EIR has been in Lto the
final EIR.
Each of these areas
- presents the potential for controversy. the primary
issues to be resolved relate to implementation the
of recommended mitigation
measures and the density decision required to determine the aper"opriate
astewater treatment method. Other areas to be resolved include the required
amendments to the,!rfollowing
plans.: the sewerage placi, the storm drainage
plan, school hee4s studies, Chico Urban area Tallansportation Plan, Butte County
Circulation Element, LAFCWs Spheres of Influence, the Nitrate Action Plani
and the finan'e.Eng plans for all of 'the above.
x.
r
TABLE 2-1-1- SU141ARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES
MITIGATION MEASURES
I IMPACT
(Significance After
g (Significance)
mitigation)
LAND USE, PLANNING, APPLICABLE'
PLANS AND POLICIES
The proposed project Mould encourage
Not able.
mitig
the development of approximately 270
new dwelling units in an area of prime
agricultural land. Loss of this agr-
cultural land would represent a 0.375
? percent decrease in, the total amOunt
of county land used for fruit and nut
production. This ineremental'.loss and
other incremental losses would be
llir
" considered z significant cumulative
impact at the regional, state and
national level. (S)
t The proposed project would increase
The City of Chico and Butte County
support the Chico Area
the frequency and magnitude of adverse
compatibility impacts with
should
Greenline policy by requiring that:
land use
agricultural, activities to the north
1) an Agrculturztl Use Notice be
to wthir. 200 Feet
-
o and west due to anticipated development
applied parcels
the Greenline (refer to Butte
6. logical
subjectoto the
of
County Code Sections 26-8, 34-1;
patternpofjlandauses
General Plan Amendment and the
34-2, 34-, and 3�s Butte,
N
9 illogical formation of the Greenling.
Pal,i
County Agricultural Nusance
2) hew urban
(S)
O-dinanee),'
development within 200 feet of the
Gedenline be set back to the Maxi-
mum feasible distance consistent
with the applicable zoning district.
requirements (cluster designs
should be encouraged to achieve
this objective); and 3) specific
performance crteria'be met by
agricultural operations. '(Notes:
S significant (Adverse)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
PS Potentially Signifie_ant Adverse)
B Beneficial
(CONTINUED)
2-4
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION' 14EASURES
TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF PR _.
MITIGATION MEASURES
;PACT
('Significance After
(Significance)
Mitigation)
the use of these three mitigation
measures could only apply if the
new Gteenlihd was drawn to farm a
logical urban limit rather than
following the perimeters of the
parcels subject to the proposed
General Plan Amendment; the use of
M
c
aerformance '(1riteria which limits
agricultural activities may not be
feasible in Butte County.)
Examples Examples of performance crit
include the following:
Noise generated by farm equip-
ment should not exceed the
limit set by applicable city
and county noise standard.
Noise generation exceeding 70
LMax dBA at the Greenline should
not b6- conducted between the
hours of 10:00 P:M. and 7:30
A.M., and phy8ical barriers
x'
should be encouraged in all
cases and should be required
where conditions Would be
expected .to exceed tolerable
limits. ('PS)
thin
The General 'P1an Ameh dment wools alter
This impact is the subject of
.
planned land. uses in the project area:
Environmental Impact Report.
The resulting pattern of land use
Measures to improve infrastructure
designations would not be considered
and -services are proposed in other
logical be stable. The subject site
sections of this report to improve
appears to be consistent with the five
oonsisteney with zoning and'
site dssignatiot, criteria for the
development criteria. For example:
S Significant (Adverse)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
PS Potentially Significant (Adv6rse)
b DeneficiaY
(CONTINUED)
2-5
TAW 2.1-1 (CONTINUED IMPACTS AND MITIGATION !MEASURES
). SUMMARY OF PROJECT ,
MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT
(Significance After
(Significance)
Mitigation)
proposed land use designationbut
to be inconsistent with
adequate fire protection would be
provided with the proposed
r
appears
conditional zoning and development
ci3tigation: (PS)
-.
criteria. (PS)
dDevelopment
in the project area would
Not mtigable. (S)
_
not be consistent with. the city s in-
tent, to encourage development in other
(S)
locations in the Chico Urban Area:
a
The Amendment of the Chico Area
Tot nit ` able. (S)
Greenline would foster population
vgrowth: and would remove a constraint
on growth in the project area. '(S)
The proposed General. Plan Amendment
None required or recommended. (B)
y would increase the supply of and
competition among higher priced
residential units: (B)
The project may requireSaereeofinent
None '- recommended. ('NS)
requ%red cr
to the City of',Chico s ph
con-
Influence so that it remains
sistent with the Chico Greenline
(NS)
h and Chico Urban Area boundary:
TRAFFIC AND 'CIPMATIUN
Additional traffic generated by tokenpro_
The applicants should be required
to all eofteachsociated with
j ect w
Would add to -V-he volumes preation
Urban Area Transport
realgalnentf the uncohn
inn the Chico
Study and would inorementally decrease
Ventional intersections in the
for specific
levels of service at conventional and
project area: Timing
realignments should be determined
unconventional intersections in
by the Butte COUtty Board of
Northern Chico. (PS)
S Significant (Adverse
SIS Nat Significant (Adverse)
M
PS Pateiatially Significant (Adverse)
B Beneficial
_ _
(CONTIt�tJED)
2��i
(CON IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED)- SITMMARY OF PROJECT
'
IMPACT
Ml0acefRES
(Significance
L-
(Significance)
Mitigation)
SuperVisors. Realignments at the
following intersections should be
completed with buildout of the
r
u
area: Bell/Muir, Bell/fiord, Bell/
Guynn, Bell/Alamo, and Rodeo/Nord.
The total cost is expected to be
approximately $6,250 if realign--
ments are coordinated with other
'
road improvements.
The applicants should be required
to contribute funds for the:
turn pockets
of left t
nfon
and for the elimination
�
street nplanade at
S
pan
ienshaw.andalongEsplanade at
for this
Lassen. The total cost
improvement is expected to be
approximately $20,500. An addi-
tional $632 would be required if
-
-Signal modifications were required.
This eontributioh is a pro rata
share based on the projectts
traffic increment compared to the
total traffic volumen and a $15,000 •
r•
cost- :for signal modification.
■
The applicants should be required
to contribute funds for the instal-
lation of traffic signals At the
following intersections (East/Nord,
East/Guynny East/Cussick, and
East/Alamo). The total cost for
these imp rovebents is expected to
be approximately $40025,* The con,
S Significant (Adverse)
N5 Not Significant Adverse
PS Potentially Significant
(Adverse) B Beneficial
(CONTINUED)
2-7
iCONTI HUEDi . SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION 'MEASURES
TABLE 2.1-1
MITIGATION MEASURES
(Significance- After
IMPACT
Mitigation)
(Significance)
{
tribution is a pro rata share based
on the project's traffic increment
compared to the total traffic,
a
volume.
i
Theapplicants should be required
Y
to te funds f ni ng
EastaAvenue
to allowfor�ide��ireLane:0(central continuous left,-
lane). This requirement Would
- involve a 13 foot widening from
26
a
Alamo half way to Guynn and a
foot Widening from SR 32 half way
to 'Guynn. Sidewalks, curbs and
gutters would not be required of
the applicants, but a pro rata
contribution—Of funds (based on
traffic) for a storm drainage
culvert would be required. The
foremovements
N)
istexpectedto be$13263• J
Access by emergency Vehicles (large
See revious mitigation measures
p (NS)
for intersection realignment
fire trucks) Mould be hindered by
(N5)
R unconventional intersections.
The proposed project would allow
The applicants should be required
in the project
}
{ development slang narrow substandard
to improVe roads
area to -the "standard set by the
r
Butte County<Plannng Commission
and Board of Supervisors. The
applicable standard would be SSS -1
if the county requires minimum
parcel sjzosldqUal to or greater
than 1.001 aeries (ruraldevelopment
S Sgnifi cant (Adverse)
Na Not Significant (Adverse)
PS Potentially Signifidant (AdVerse)
B Beneficial
(CONTINUED)
2-8
TABLE 2 1-1 ( CONTINUED). SUMMARY OPPROJECT IMPACTSANDMITIGATION MEASURES
,,
I
MITIGATION MEASURES
jIMPACT
(Significance After
(Significance)
Mitigation)
v
standards). The applicable stand
and for 10 acre parcels and urban
r
standards is RS -2, which includes
sidewalks, curbs and gutters (storm
drainage infrastructure). The
improve-.
timing for the required
tents standards should be
determined by the Butte County
Bo,(rd of Supervisors.
Improvements to the following
roadway segments should be com-,
pleted with buildout of the area:
Muir, from SR 32 to Bell,
Rodeo from Muir to Henshaw, Nord,
Bell to East
!3 nn and. Alamo from
and HenshaW from Nord to Alamo.
The City of Chico would request
that these roadways meet standards
of the city or �;ounty, Whichever
are more stringent: The total cost
is expected to be approximately
$i ,11}44,125 to achieve the SRS -1
standard and $2,2621825 to achieve
4
the RS -2 standard. (NS)
an
Butte County and the
acquire appropriate City of Chico
opriate funding
inoremental�impactcon Area wide
n
( pS)
should
from deVelopers, F8WAand CALTRANS'
traffic. conditions.
for long range traff4a improvement'
programs as required by the County
Circulation Element and CATS.
------------r
J S Significant (Adverse)
HS Not Significant (Adverse)
B Beneficial
PS Potentially Significant (Adverse)
(CONTINUED)
2-� w
TABLE 2..1-1 (CONTINUED).SUMMY OF PROJECT
114PACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT
(Significance After
(Significance)
Mitigation)
The feasibility and desirability of
The City of Chico and Butte County
the Chico Urban Area
the Lassen Avenue Extension through
by
should review
Transportation Study's recommenda-
�
the prosect site would be altered
the proposed project. (PS)
tion for extending Lassen Avenue
Route 32 for
west to State
such an improvement would, being
p
difficult without further density
4
increases or an areawide funding
district). IP this 'proposal is
determined to be a long range
requirement, Butte County should
a
require property dedications of
right of way prior to development
in the area. (NS)
The proposedProp' ect would allow
�
Site design criteria which
opportunities for transit
incremental increases in the demand
The transit service for the CATS Route
increase
patronage should be encouraged if
were
Avenue C;""ridor.
specific development proposals
1 and along the East
to involve clusters of development.
The proposed land use intens ,ion
Access to the future extension Of
Road should be provided via
would encourage the .extensi 3aton
( to
Eaton
Bell Road. Intersections with Nord
f
Road, Which presents the Pd .�
Gwynn and Alamo should not be
make Hord; Gwynn and Alamo 1.,,,;% north/
(PS)
encouraged unless additional land
south connectors.
use intensification and related
roadway improvements occur prior
to extension of these r6adwt.'a4.
(NS)
ict
K increased existing conflicts. between
M Chico pini fied School Dista'
mitigate safety impacts
a bicycles pedestrians, :and motor`
(PS)
ould
related,to pedestrian and bicjrle
vehicles along East Avenue.
5 S nificant (Adverse)
g
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
PS potentially if'.cant (Adverse)
B Beneficial
(CONTINUED)
2-10
I
.RY OF
TABLE 2.1-1,(rONTINUED$•SUQA
URES
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MTT]GATIONMEAS
_
MITIGATION 14EASORES
`
('Significance After
IMPACT
Mitigation)
(Significance)
-------------
crossings near Ja;Y Partridge
Paid crossing guards could
School.
be used to mitigate existing, and
itor
coneitions with or
projected safety
Without the proposed project,. _
GEOLOGY/HyDROLOG Y
Specific engiaeer.ng design and
Site soils and geology p resent a
potential,
,_ _
construction techniques recom-
by the soils engineer should
Moder-ate shrink/swell
allowable- soil pressure.,
mended
be ineorporated,. as needed, into
moderate
low erosion potential and seismic
the project desizn• Building
with seismic
hazards• (PS)
design should comply
of the current
requirements
Uniform Buil.dinit Code and the
Recommended Lateral Force
Requirements prepared by the
Association of
Structural .Engineers
Cali'fornia•
Stan=dard construction methods and
sshould be
erosion control; measures
implemented (including dry weather
season gradingj, erosion control
revegetation, and devices to
r
plans,
retain sediment: within the con-
t
struction area) to minimize t.
potential erosion impacts..
FoundaItion supports and utilities
be designed to resist and
'should
withstand _cart hquake induced ground
haking• (NSA
shaking-
.
NS Not Signifio'ant Advers
5 Significant (Adverse)
Potentially Significant (Advetce)
B BenefiOial __..
PS
'
2-11
TABLE2.1-1 (CONTINUED) • SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACT:.�` AND MITIGATION MEASURE
S-
MITIGATION MEASURES,
(Significance After.
IMPACT
Mitigation)
(Significance)
If rura)., standards (SRS -1 Roadways)
Derelo meat of the site would increase
p
are required for site development
the amount of stormwater runoffdrinae
would
system
a net al storm
generated in the project area and
of
tilizedaandgind vidual
incrementally reduce the amount
'(NS)
review of subdivisions and, site
groundwater infiltration.
plans should focus on measures to
reduce o:: site runoff. Performance
standards for accommodating storm- ,
water during the 100 year event
should be implemented on a parol
by parcel basis. (The minimum pipe
size to accommodate .a ten year
,is
storm; however, no, flooding of
one f hird
houses and no more than
of tike road from the curb to,
eeL:.tor, l shall be ;inundated
-no
dulrng a 100 year storm:)` Semi-
pervious i�;lkways and stormwater
dispersal strategies should be
considered.
If urban stauIards (R8-2 Roadways)
are required for site development,
a storm drainage �r , stem capable of
accommodating the 1010 year flood
event . from the site should be
eventhe,
constructed, for such as
system Would be approximatelt'
$4;592►133• (NS)
�:.
Urban pollutant levels (hydrocarbon's,
None required or reco mmended tNS)
e-bber and metals) could be increased
as, a result of development allowed by
the proposed project.
(Adverse)
NS Not Signifi.caat (Adverse)
5 Significant
PS Potentially Significant (Adverse)
B Beneficial
{CONTINUED)
i
2-12
TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMARYOFPROjECT
,IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
PACT
MITIGATION MEASURESIM
(Significance)
(Significance After
Mitigation)
existing wells in the project
vicinity.'
If the density decision indicates
_
that -the proposed density- is tori
high, the project could be approved
contingent upon the r;equire;nent t
that a sewer hookup be installed
y
within a time period defined by the
®
city and county. This contingent
■
;approval should not be made unless s
the engineering and financing for
the required sewer extension were
roved by the city and county. and �
the time frame would prevent
adverse impacts to groundwater
contamination in. the area by
K
nitrates.
r
If seWerlines weree eGto b 1
P" feted
to the project area'the count
could, approve the proposed a*,6Aeral
Plan Amendment and allow c'a,belop...
ment contingent upon a, sewer
hookup. Engineering and 'financing
fo"r the future system 'Would' have to
be approved by the city and county
Prior to any development to assure
that the system was feasible. (PS)
Development of additional residential
uses would incrementally increase the
Butte' County ..should consider cumu-
demand for police s6lvices. y
lP$)
lative demands for police services
and develop, an appropriate funiiittg<
mechanism, such as an assessment
.
district to maintain future -level
S Significant (Adverse)
PS hotertially Signif ieant(Adverse>)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
13 Bene'3 esl
(CONTINUED)
2-14
E 2.1-1 (CONTINUED). SUMMARY OF PROJECT 1HPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
MITIGATION HEASURES
(Significance After
Mitigation)
(Significance)
of service standards. (The
t'
feasibility of this mitigation
measure is questionablebecause
recent efforts by the county to
raise revenues for this purpose
by
have been denied voters.)
Butteshould consider
r° " the project
develop c:rs
area to pay for 4he incremental
impact ($28,600) :per year on
m
police services created by the
X
proposed General. Plan Amendment.;
(p5)
ADevelopment
of residential uses in the
Butte County will collect V5 per `
hico
in hArea"stoCgain Fire
project area would increase the demand
Fire Department,
new, pancBenefit61
Stafunds
upon the Butte County
and the lack of fire hydrants in the
to build a new fire station
the area..
area would create a significant fire
that V ll serve project
safety hazard. (S)
Butte County should seek #dditiont1
volunteers to operate a "v'oion 4?_
until Station 43 is dol ° j-' t-ueted.M
A pressurized water syntem should
be installed to co�nfoen to Butte
County Fire 'Department, require-
menu.
Wdranti3 should be placed in
appropriate locations according to
county standards defined on page 52
of the Butte County Improvement
Pa"reel
Standards for Subdivisions
S Significant (Adverse)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
PS Potentially Significant (Adverse)
B Beneficial
(CONTINUEb)
2.,1►� ti
21-1 (CONTINUED): SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
TABLE
MITIGATION MEASURES
(Significance After
IMPACT
Mitigation)
(Significance)
baps and Site Imaroyements Pursuant
to Chanter ?, of the Butte Count
=Ode. (NS,)
The capacity of Neal Dow School would:
project _area developers should be
required to place a notation on
be exceeded with the addition of the
be by
Final Maps, then filed, stating
students expected to generated
(S)
that the issuance :of residential
development in project area.
develo
buildinermits, mobile home
g p
permits
installations or hookup permis
t
for residential dwelling ts
is subject to the Payment of
school fees pursuant to Butte
County Ordinance No. 2463 and
No. 85-40 • The recently
Resolution
apPro�'ved fee will mitigate pr )ject
related impacts• See Appendix 16.10
for estimating fee. The school
distric� is is goti-
i
-
ating with the project applicants
Aew
for land dedication for e
elementary school site in lieu of
(NS)
the fixed fee.
Nev residential develo pment 3n the
..
See mitigation for Geology and
Hydrologic impactsi
.project area would increase storm
water runoff and the demand for
drainage capacity. (PS)
The projeot would increase the demand
Butte 'County should implement the
Circulation Element policy to
for road maintenance on underde�P,Ped
develop a system of off site
�oad�rays in the project area
development fees and or development
agreements for road construction
and maintenance to allow project
S Significant (Adverse)
NS. Not 6ignifi6ant (Adverse)
$' Beneficial
PS potentially Significant (Adverse)
(CONTINUED)
2-1b
v
i
i
s
a
i
TABLE 2.1-2. SUMMARY OF APPROXIMATE
COST FOR REQUIRED AND
RECOMMENDED
MITIGATION
-
EXPANDED PROJECT
PROP05ED PNOJECT
AREA ALTERNATIVE
ITEM
(270 NEW UNITS)
(350 NEW U%.TS)
County Road Improvement
Standards
SRS-1
$1,1, 125
$144 ,1440125
RS-2
$2,2621825
$2,262,825
t
Roadway Realignments
$6,250
$61250 e
Traffic Signals
$40 x125
$50,630
Left; Turn Pockets and Parking
Restrictions
$21,132
$21,266
_
Widen East, Avenue
$132,643
$132,643
Storm Drainage Infrastructure
$40592,133 (b)(c)
$4,592033 (b)
Storm Drainage Maintenance Fee
$5/year (c)
s5/year
Connection to Setier
$3,190, 500 (b)
$3.;,258,500 (b)
'
Domestic Water, and Fire Flow
(a)
$775,000 (a)(b)
$775,00 (b
Systems
Police Protection
28,000/ ear
$36.r2f10/gear
_
Fire Protection.
$20,250
$32250
Schools
$607,$00
$7871500
Road Maintenance Cd)
$7,627/year
$7;627/year
(a) Cal Water would purchase 'the water system $175,000
from t'he applicants
(b) Atproportion nofothis4costac6Uld rs,
,be 'recaptured if sprvicesleapaeity is
provided to other pardels:
(c) Not required with SR8-1 standard for RoadWays:'
(d) Costs for paid aross.jhg gdards should not, be project specific cbsts.
Solaroe Earth Metz Jos sneorparated,
1986 and '1987;Tuttle,
1988 i tdell,
r
1986x; Bird; 1986; T�.11er,'19863
Hawkins, 1986,
Henslsy, 1987;
Rolls, Anderson; and Rollo,
61984•
a
2,18
3. EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR POSSIBLY SIGNIFICANT:
EX
ISTING SETTING IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
.1 LAND _USE PLANNING _APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES
EXISTING SETTING
Land Uses. Land in the project area is used for agricultural and residential
purposes. The primary agricultural 'uses in the area, are orchards, but other
uses such as pasture land and vineyards are present. Residential uses are
located throughout the project area. Clusters of dwelling units are located
in four locations; (1) along the west side of Rodeo Drive, (2) along the west
end of Muir Avenue;, (37 along the south half of Nord Avenue; and (4) along
' Bell Road near Guynn Avenue.
Land. uses surrounding the project area are similar to those within the project
Pacific Transportation Company railroad the south
line
ential
- boundary.
... r are
andaeast�eVThe mainaSouthernses zncrease in frequency and den
ty oloeated
forms the project site s western boundary
The railroad tracks
parallel to S4.,ate Route 32• industrial and commercial land uses have been
developed along both sides of State Route 32 west of the project area.' barge
parcels north of theP roject area are used for agricultural purposes.
Agricultural Character of the Pro�eeti Area and'Vicinity. The project area and
' vicinity contain highly productive soils. These soils and otherfactors, such
as climate and the availability of inexpensive and highquality watery combine
conducive to agriculture.
to make this area and much of
'Butte County highly
The continued viability of agriculture,
the county's biggest industry, is a
and the Butte
Vit component of the county's economy: Both_ the
the City of Chico
Al_ County General Plans recognize the importance of agriculture and address '
issue with specific land use planning policies and procedures. A primary land
use planning tool, the city/county Greenline ,policy, is described in a
following discussion entitled Plans and Policies.
' The project area currently produces almonds, walnuts, pecans, kiwi, feijoa,
and other agr' a Table 3.1-1)• The project area (27u
acres} other
agreints 0.375 percent of°the total fruit and nut acreage in Butte
3.cultural products (se
e percent of 597 0. p the total fruit and nut
County. The 430 acre area represents
acreage in Futte County.
The characterof the agricultural lands within the project area is typical of
agricultural lands on the edge of urban areas. The incremental direct and
indirect impacts of urban activity are affecting the economic viability of
r agricultural production. The following .direct and indirect impacts affect the
viability, of agriculture ohe project site and increase the incentive for
property owners to discontinueag cultural production in order, to capitalize
on the shbet term economic gain which can be realized by urban development*
smaller pareel si"zes, increasing property values, urban nuisances; such as
vandalism,, and impacts of *riOUItural activites on urban uses, such as the
application of pestieioes and the generation of dust, smoke and noise.
Although there iv -pacts are affecting agricultural uses on the site, they have
not prevented productive use of the project area for agriculture to the
present tune,=
3.1-1
r
' �� -�'�-..•i—.- ��"�—%,-��-�. �„_'�' ,.�.+1�� :mss.•-_ ,.,Jy��^ ;:
_
j�• :� .• ...d �_�—"+Ly�' :SLC— 1 `
PROJ EC"t SITE
-
,.' -��+ ter' —A� ° ^ , • 71 • •L j •i, • •.. • • • • • • — '
Nr
..._+ •• r.ir _� L
..-�- 5�
w,.----�E
� �.--' _ -- ` KY _
�'--' —� �-- •rte .tea..-
RE,.<�TDENTIAL ;
--�a�f = ,� • '' �,y� �SEDttT1S DE�i$ITY � .
oP,0lt&kD AND );'TELT) CROPS `
W9 'bMITY RES1DIs'NT AL
INDUSTRIALRES1I�ENTTfill
COMMERCIAL
Punic
..emsFIGURE: 3:1-1 CITY Aft CCUI3TY GE
IERAL�
N ,FLAN LAND USE DE5 tg
earth metrics
SCALE
CN THF PROJECT VlovTTY
1�� 2bbb' F
5G
isoil conditions well suited for plant crop operations;
- adequate water supply;
predominant parcel sizes of five acres or more;
- used for crop production or secondary uses; and
adjacent uses compatible with primary and secondary uses.
The three conditional zoninganddevelopment criteria for the Orchard and
Field Crop uses are:
- predominate existing parcel sizes range from 5 to 10 acres;
adjacent to or in the general vicinity of urban boundt,ries;
- present status of agricultural production will not be significantly
impaired.
The six zoning f actors for the Orchard and Field Crop users are:
existing parcel sizes and dweling densities;
- proximity..
to: urban development;
effects' on djacent uses;
potential for pest insect breeding,
economic viability;
- local desires.
' The project site's existing Orchard and. Field Crop designation appears to be
consistent with .the five primary criteria for designating the site and the
three conditional ironing and development criteria. However, the designation
may not be consistent with two of the six zoning factors (economic viability
and, local desires). Economic viability was discussed previously under the
heading`"Agricultural Character of the Project Area and Vicinity". If "local
desires" include the desires of 1`cal property owners, then the existing
designation is clearly inappropriate relative to this factor because the j
project pp " i
a lcants are all local property owners
Zoning. The project area is subject to the requirements of the Butte County
g
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Number 1750.
The Butte County zoning map
indicates that the requirements of two zoning districts, (A-5) Agriculture and
(S -R) Suburban Residential) apply to the area within the dark border in Figure
3.1-2. The parcels affected by the proposed General Plan Amendment are within
the A-5 District, The requirements of this to are presented in Appendix
16.x. Permitted uses are consistent with the. General Plan land use
designation of 00rdhard and Field Crop". The minimum lot area required is
five acres (see the previous discussion of zoning development criteria and
toning. factors)_:
Urban Development Trends and.Patterns.
Urban development in the Chico area
has been directed with publ;:o and. private investment to properties within the
existing urban area and, to 1t,'ati6ns north, south and east of the city core.
In, addition to this inVestn.ent, the Nitrate Action Plan for the Greater Chico
Urban Area also encourageo development in the existing urban area,
partioularly within those areas served by the city's sanitary sewer system.
;she% Ni't"rate Action Plan recommends that development be limited in areas
Hitbiwt 8Pw6e connections (Butte County and city of Chico, MS)
• M ,
r
Two large private projects, Foothill Park and Rancho Arroyo, have been.
-approved in northern Chico.The Foothill Fark development .includes 551 acres
of residential and office uses (3,200 dwelling units, 15 percent have been
sold) and 244 acres of industrial uses (Palmeri, 1985)• The ' Rancho Arroyo project includes 750 acres of resx3ential uses (4,600 dwelling units, none
have been sold at this time) and 25 acres of commercial uses (Palmeri, 1985).
Development in southeast Chico ;has included residential, commercial and light
industrial uses, primarily ;youth of State Route 32 and, east of Park Avenue.,
Development west of Chico has been directed towards infill of existing parcels
planned for urban uses by local planning efforts, the lack of sewer service,
and
landthe
are�.vailable ford
e..ine. However, large parcels of
'underutilized city/county
evelopment within the: existing Chico
Area Greenline•
The population of the incorporated area of Chico was approximately 31050 in
1985 according to state Department of Finance calculations dated April 29,
1985. The 1'1985population accounted r foapproximately' 44 percent of the total -
population of incorpora},ed,areas of Butte County and 19 percent of the total
county population in 1,966 (see Appendix 16.`7)• A summary report of controlled
- county population estimates for
January 1, 1985, including breakdowns by
housing unit, type, estimated vacancy rates, and the average number of persons
per household for incorporated and unincorporated areas in Butte County, is
presented in Appendix 16.8. The population of the incorporated and
unincorporated "Chico Area" was approximately 64,000persons in 1985 and was
estimated to increase to 102,000 by the year 2006 and to 171,000 after
buildout of the General Plan Land Use Map, according to the Chico Urban Area
Transportation Study prepared in 1982. Table 3.1-2 present amore recent
population forecast for buildout of the Chico Area.
The population of the project vicinity defined as the area north and west of
Bell Road, Cussick Avenue,-Lindo Channel (Traffic Zone 30 of the Chico Urban
Area Traffic Study) is expected to increase from 2,006 persons to 2,114 by the
year 2000 (Chico Urban Area Transportation Study;, 1982)•
Plans and Policies
CHTCO AREA GREENLZNE. The City of Chico and Butte County have established a
boundary to define the limits offuture urban development which may occur on
agricultural lands in the 'Chico area of Butte County. The Greenline is
delineated in Figure 3.1-1 Thee " a he urban
�projeet site it
a-Number 1. the not Included within t
Area designation would
has,been designated as .Study
bounnade line; b low the County Board of Supervisors to approve a
' Greenline Amendment bya simple majority vote: Tn other cases the
supervisors, after making appropriate findings and providing a simple majority
votei could revise the location of the Chico Area Greenline so as to place the
parcels outside of the Greenline in the urban portion of the Chico Area
Greenline.' The special policies and procedures :related to the Greenline, as
described in the Butte County General Plan would not, Apply to any amendments
related to this area. The Chico Area Greenline Policy' is presented in Appendix
13.5. The purposes of the policy- y ., and proceduresor Amendment and review of
the Greenline are summarized as follows, . f
Purposes of Greenliti"
e PoliatJ: The purposes of the Chico Area Greenline
are'c:
3.1-6
M,
k�l
TABLE 3.1-2. PROJECTED BUILDOUT
POPULATION OF THE CHICO AREA
BASED ON THE
CHICO GENERAL PLAN
LAND USE MAP
LAND USE TOTAL
NUMBER OF
TOTAL NUMBER
OF
DESIGNATIOtd ACRES
DWELLING UNITS
PER ACRE
DWELLING UNITS
�.
Agricultural/ 12,988.3
1
12,988
Residential
Low Density 7,407.0
3 (a)
6 (b}
22,221 (a)
44,4.42 (b)
Residential -
Medium Density
709.. 4
13
9,222
Residential
High Density
854.7
20
12,094
Residential
TOTAL 21,956.4
83,746 (b)
1
Total Number
of Dwelling
Household
Formation
Buildout
population
Factor
Units_
_
61,525 (a)
2.263 (Q) ._
139,231 (a)
156,027 (a)
61,525 "(a),
2:536
9.263
189,517 (b)
83,746 (b)
2.536---------------
212,379 (b)
83x746 (b)
--------------
-
(a) Maximum density on septic tanks erage 3.121
density on seater system growth rate:
1(d)
percent pec year,
Chica as defined by
(c) Average 'household formation factor for incorporated
Department of Finance
Average 'household formation factor for Butte County
as defined ,by
Department of Finance
Source Tuttle, 1986•
i
3.i�T
a) To define the limits Of future urban development which may occur on
g f Butte County
agricultural lands in the Chico area o
'b) To provide for the long term protection of agricultural resources of
the Chico area of Butte County-
e) To mitigate the threat to agricultural resources posed by urban
encroachment into and conversion of ag � e Chico
r..cultural lands in th
area of Butte County;
d) To reduce agricultural/urban conflicts in the Chico area of Butte
County.
e) To establish County cooperation with the City of Chico in land use
planning of urban and agricultural lands located in the Chico area
of Butte -County.
f) To identify urban development limits in or near agricultural lands
within the county's Chico area Land
bold dashed boundary line:
ty
g) To establisha certain and cleat �willyenhanceoanddupholduthe,s
Chico Area Land Use Element which .
aforementioned boundary line and, policy telt
h) To establish certain land use designations for the Chico areline and
conformity with the aforementioned boundary
.. Butte County in .,
p t.
policy text.
The Butte County-
Procedures for Amendment of the Greenlin.e Policy.
Board Of Supervisors may amend the Chico Greeh ine Policy through a
majority Vote after adopting written findings of facts supported by
f ng:
substantia evidence in the public r.cord showing the following'
land to
(a) that the public benefits of converting the agricultural
urban land substantially outweigh the public benefits of
continued agricultural production; and
(b) there are no other urban or suburban reasonable available
.and. suitable for the proposed. de
velop
�i
Procedures for Review of the Greenline Policy: The Greenline Policy
states that the locationof the
toinsurethat local land itI6 shall be euse needsVieWed ofthe
evaluated every fiveY policy is due in
Chico area are being met: The first review of the v petition
7987• However, the policy also states that an individual may
the Board of Supervisors for a General Plan Amendment$ including a
change in the location of the Greenlihe, in accordand Lance withothCalifornia
applicable laws and policies of Butte County
'(see Appendix 13•b)
CITE AN—b,d UNTY:GgNERAL 'PLAN.H0U5ING ELEMENT. The City of Chico and Butte
Elibiements as pa f their General Plans: The
County have adopted tiousment the fiousin8 Eleme d' Use
rt a
primary measuke to implement nt is the General Plan Lan
Map, which reserves laads for residential uses. ThP City of Chico dousing
Element defines the policies, programs, and recommendations related to the
provision of housing in the city. The following text from the city's',Housing
Element was adapted to summarize Chico housing policies.
In planning for the provision of housing for all present and future Chico
residents', the city's primary goal is to provide for a variety of housing
types in an atmosphere conducive to the well being of city residents, and
particularly to provide'for an ,adequate supply of housing ranging in cost
to 'meet the demands of stadents, low and moderate income persons, the,
special needs of the elderly and handicapped, and to provide an
opportunity for first time home buyers.
The Housing Element recognizes the constraints of today's housing market
such as building costs, mortgage interest 'rates; the preservation of
agricultural land, provision of sanitary sewers, storm drainage and
streets, the provision of other pUblia services -such at police -and fire
protection, school facilities and parks, concern for design, preservation,
r of neighborhoods and historical structures, as well as concern for energy'
conservation within housing units. The Housing Element states that all
of these factors must be considered .in concert with one another, and no
single item can be emphasized at the expense of another if Chico is to
pursue a balanced and realistic approach to the provision of housing for
current and future Chico residents (City of Chaco, 1985)
The Butte County Housing Element also defines policies, programs, and
recommendations related to the provision of housing. The: following policies
apply to the project area:
�+ A governmental framework shall be establiLhed and maintained which,
encourages -and facilitates maximum performance of the private
homebuilding industry in accommodating the housing needs of the countyls
current and projected population.
�- Planning: and zoning considerations affecting housing p
roduction shall be
applied in a manner which seeks to balance the need "for protecting; and
enhancing the environment with the need for housing at affordable
t,riees.
' New housing construction shall be encouraged in locations with.
y reasonable proximity to centers of employment and shopping facilities,
and which respect the conservation of energy. The ,private homebuilding
industry shall be encouraged to give priority consideration to
developing within existing urbanized areas or in locations adjacent to
such areas (Butte County, 1980
dtifg? PLAN5 AND pbtielk8 N:..and use
plotitiing projeots such as the propogedaGsneralpPlaniAmeridment � ThePlantand
polic3,es applicable to the proposed, ra eat ina---ude`those discussed previously
ollowing, the on bin, Brown and Caldsell beWerage
P j g g
and drairia a lans, sehobl se needs Studies, the Chico tlrbari Area
in this section and the f
B P _,
TIeattsportatf,oh F'1an ;CATS), the $utte County Circulation Element, the Local
Age'ticy, Formation (LAFCO) Plans for 'wSpheres` ofInfIiel�ce" inB>itte County and
p ge
the Nitrate Action Plan The laps and `policies "related to sewers drains
and school services and the Nitrate Action Plan are discussed in Section 3.4
of the EIR. CATS and the Butte County Circulation Element are discussed, in
Section .3.2 of the EIR
S
The L!!FCC" pheres of Influence" include areas 'within the formal City limits
`
and planning areas beyond those limits that LAFCO has defined., The Sphere of
Influence boundaries are ;guided by many factors including the boundary of an
urban area. The City of Chico's Sphere of Influence line is equivalent to the
Chico Area Greenline in the project vicinity., This equivalence indicates
LAFCO's intention to support the Greenline as defined by the City and County.
IMPACTS
Land. Uses The proposed General Plan Amendment would not directly affect
existing, developed land uses; however, it would encourage private property
owners to sub4ivide prime agricultural. land for. residential develonm:ent.. A
maximum of 270 new residential units could be allowed in the project area if
the project is approved (Tuttle, 1985). Without approval of the project, only
20 additional residential units could be developed in the project area.
Loss of Agricultural Land. The incremental loss of the prime agricultural
landin the project area would represent a 0.375 percent decrease in the total
amount of county land used for fruit and .nut productions This incremental
loss would not be considered significant on a countywide basis. However, this
Increment and other incremental losses are contributing to cumulative loss of
Agricultural land at the regional, state and national. levels. At the regional
level, cumulative agricultural impabts and the loss of, agricultural land are
reducing maximum Potential yields of agricultural products to the point where
the,economic,feaSibility of agricultural activities or support services, such
as processing, packaging and transportation, are being threatened. Once
regional production reduces to :certain threshold levels, support services may
be relocated, service costs may increase, or services may be reduced. These
impacts in ;Butte County would be considered cumulatively significant due to
the importance of agriculture to the regional economy.
Further losses ofricultural land could occur as a result of increased ed land.
use compatibility impacts, a,s discussed in the following section and in
Section 6, Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action., Section 4.2,
Expanded Project Area Alternative, addresses the; agricultural impacts of a
General Plan Amendment which includes all of the Parcels its the project area.
LAND USE COMPATIBILITY. The conversion of additiobAl agricultural land to
residential uses would increase the frequency ,and magnitude of existing land
use incompatibility within and adjacent to the 'project arca: Those
agricultural parcels which are contiguous to the converted rand Mould be most
affected tree Figure 1.1=3): However."", the general eneroaeha�ent of urban uses.
Presents cumulative land use compatibility impacts along the Chico Area
Greenline.; Increased nuisances. (vandalism .and theft of agricultural property
anu agricultural adtivities,.such as applications of pesticides and the
generation of dust,smoke and noise) would increase he potential for
conversion of other agricultural lands to urban uses,. The application of
agricultural usproblems, but would not mitigate incompatibility owners of potential
Use. notices Mould infori future land
'impacts. Agricultural
buffers Would not be practical on a parcel by parcel basis: However,
3.�-10
I
agricultural buffers and use notices should, be utilized by the City and County
along the Chico Area Greenline as a long range program to reduce land !ase
incompatibility. The appropriate buffer program must be developed on a cash
by case basis using some combination of the following mechanisms: setbacks$
design constraints (cluster housing), physical barrierz, such as roadways,
fences and vegetation, and performance criteria, such as limits on nuisance
generation (noise, dust, smoke, etc.). Recommendations are provided under
Mitigation Measures in this section.
project would revise the General Plan Land
g cc
Planned Land Uses. The proposed
Use designations on the affected ,parcels. The designation of adjacent
properties and properties almost surrounded, by the affected ;parcels would not
be changed The resulting land use pattern would not be logical or stable
compared to a project involving all of the parcels in the project area or a
prosect with better boundary delineation, such as roads or creeks (see Section
j mpasts�)
�}, Expanded. Project Area and Section 6, Growth Inducing I
The new land use designation for the project area would be "Urban:
Agricultural Residential" with one acre minimum parcel sizes, The applicable
zoning designation could be SR-1 (see Appendix 16.4). The impacts associated
with these revlsions re]ated�tolthfsdlanddusees are the subject of this plennt. the
ing decision involvesrthe reffecis
pi unary impact .I.
s
of wastewater disposal (see 83-#,j 3, Public':Services and'Utilities).
Urban Development Trends and Patterns.' " The pProposed General Plan
Amendment
and subsequent development of reside in the project area could
result in the development of up to 270 additional residential units and
approximately 648 persons (at 2.4 persons per dwelling unit). Development in
this 'Area the city's intent to encourage
development ndother not bconsistent
locationsin thehChico`Urban Area; The addition of 648
persons to the project area (Traffic Zone 30) would exceed the population
projected in the Chico Urban Area Transportation Study by approxi,mately 31
percent of the population projected for the year 2000 and would represent a
ed num
six fold increase in the projectber of people to be added in this zone
1 by the year 2000 (648 vs. 100. Although the addition of the 648 persons to
the project vicinity would .not be considered a significant adverse impact, the
expansion of the housing market into prilae agricultural land at the expense of
considered a significant, adverse planth existing sewer connections would be
focusin develo ent in other areas with
g ping inconsistency (see following
discussionon the Chico Area GtL-enliae)i.
Chico area_Greenline. Approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment would
require relocation of the Chico Area Greenline within :study Area Number 1.
The change is shown in Figure 3�1-3• The pew "line" would follovr the
perimeter be the peoperti"es subject to the'Gerierhl. Plan Amendment. This neW
line would be illogical and would not serve the intended purpose' of the
Greenline Policy'. A 'more logical line should be considered to avoid adverse
impacts associated v#ith the proposed Eine: 'This relocation be the Chico Area
Greenlifid does not r6quire support by°substantial evidence in the 'public
record ,showing that the public benefits of converting the agriculttral land to
Urban
land sub"st`ahtially outweigh the public benefits of continued
agricultural production; and that there are no other urban or suburban lands
reasonably available and suitable for the proposed development (see Impacts on
Land 'Uses)•
:3�1-11
n<i L' :T yJVi
•ti •J.
r
j � 1
r ~+ -
t�''i Ly it
.. _..< "�: tdrSt:n. _n l... • „.�... 1 _ ... ...r 1-V1 S:....: _.. i�(
e
The amendment of the Chico Area Greenline could be considered growth inducing;
stering population growth and by removing the Greenline as a
by directly fe
, Growth Inducing Impacts). Review of the
constraint to growth (See Section 6
Chico Area Greenline Policy is still expected to occur in 1987•
Housing. The proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the supply of
available residential land in the Chico Urban Area,. The future residential
units would not be expected to serve students or low to moderate income
persons, but increase se the supply of and competition among higher priced
units. This impact would be beneficial. At this time, the conversion of this
property from agricultural uses to residential uses may not be consistent with
city or county housing policies, which indicate the need to balance
- preservation of agricul'ttiral land and/or the environment with increasing the
d the Chico discuArea ssions
ertne inicatto Urban Development
supply of housing:. The previous d e
Trends ;and Patterns anand is a significant impact and that tthe availabilityOf
subject agricultural .,may not justify the
housing in other are"v of eastern and northern Chico
proposed General Plan Amendment at this time.
LAFCO Sphere of Influence Boundary. The proposed project would amend the.
Greenline and Would alter the limit of the Chico Urban Area. The changes may
require an amendment to the City of Chico's Sphere of Influence boundary
(Sellers, 1987)=
MITIGATION MEASURES. The following mitigation measures are recommended,to
reduce the land use and planning impacts identified in this section.
Land Use ComiSatibility
The City of Chico andButteCounty should support the Chico Area
" b requiring that: 1) an Agricultural Use Notice be
Greenline palicy y`
applied to parcels within 200 feet of the Greenline (refer to Butte
County Code Sections'26-8,
34-1, 34-2s 34-3 and 34-12 and Butte County
Agricultural Nuisanee`Ordinance); 2) new urban development within 200
set back to the maximum feasible distance
feet-of the Greenline be
consistent with the applicable zoning district requirements (cluster
designs should be encouraged to achieve this objective); and 3)
specific performance criteria be met by agricultural operations;
Notes: the use of these three mitigation measures could only apply if
the `new Greenline was deiNh to form A logical urban limit rather than
of
the parcels subject to the proposed General
followingthe perimeters of the p w Which limits
Plan Amehdmenti, the ubd
agricultural activities 'MAY- beafeasiblende ein Butte County.) Examples
agricultural
criteria inolude the following: noise generated by farm
of per applicable ctY and
equipment ;should not `exceed the, limits set by
county noise standards; noise generation ei�eeeding 70 T,MaxoO P.M. the
Greenline should not be conducted between the hours of 10: and
7;30 A.M.; and physical barriers should be encouraged in all cases and
should be required where conditions would be expected toexceed
tolerable liinit86
3:1-13
3.2 TRAFFIC AND CTRCULErION
E gSTING SETTING
Roadway S_1 stem . The roadway system within the project area is presented in
lude: Muir Avenue, Hell
ure 1.1-2•
Fig Roadways serving the project area inc
s roadways
Road, Alamo Avenue,'GuYnn AeeEast Ave
nue, er
State Route32a ndimry aThe sEsplanade.
serving the project area ar
Muir Avenue, Bell Road, Alamo Avenue, Guynn Avenue and Nord Avenue are two
. East Avenue is a two lane arterial south of the project
lane local roadways
situ but widens :to four lanes just to the west of The Esplanade intersection,'
East Avenue is the primary east/west arterial in northern. Chico. State Route
to Hamilton CityOrland, Interstate
32 is a two lane highway providing access , .
5, and southern Chico (see Figures 1.171 and 11-2)• State Route 32 is a four
lane roadway southeast of First Street., The Esplanade or State Business Route
99 is a primary north/south arterial leading to State Route 99 which provides
north/south access to Red Bluff, Redding (to the north) and to Sacramento and
Southern California (to the south). The Esplanade also provides access to
commercial areas, including downtown Chico.
90
Most of the in in the eroject nterseetionsyare thhave aneangveeofiincidenpe
degree angle type, but some of th
Which is. significantly less than 90 degrees. These intersections ically bletto
substandard construction ofthe
associated
Po intersections typand standard
accommodate fewer vehicles ting
roadways
project area roadways cab also present unsafe maneuvers
conditions.' The following unconventional intersections are located in and
near the project area: Bell/Muir, Bell/'Nord, Bell/Guynn, Bt/Kennamo,
ly, Bell/Cussicki EastlKennedy,
Bell/Jones, sell/Elkwooa_t Bull/Butterf• o Henshaw and Muir. meet
Kennedy/State Route 3'21 and Rodeo/Nornn he following roadways do not
county .'roadway standards. Alamo, Guynn,
i,e Conditions and 'Levels of Service. T. Ek* stingP
Local Tri traffic volumes
_
desdripti..4 of levels of service for intersections
acceptable levels of service
on roadways within the project vicinity p
(relatively free flow). However, levels of service are being incrementally
wing intersections: East/
reduced by increasing traffic volumes at the. East/Cehasset and The
State Route 32j East/The Esplanade, East/State Route 9,Ea provides the existing P.M.
Es lanado/Cohasset (see Figure these • Table 3.2-
P intetsectiOt-t- At some
peak hour levels of service at tlieseon observations rather than ccalculations
' level of service is estimated based
Areawide Traffic.Coriditions� In 19821
the City of Chico prepared an are
hede
For purposes of
transportation study. documenting the traffic setting,
Ohioo_Urban Area 'Transit Study (CATS), 'prepared for the city 'by JHK and
Associates, is hereby 'incorporated by reference.
The GATS has not been
the co
s presented in CATS
adopted by unty. Some of the assumptions/finding
Way not be ourrent; prudent; or accurate. This EIR recognizes and accounts
fon these inadequacies to the extent feasiblo� tperefin6ttheiCATSpoperate with
the city and encourages the city in its eff .
The 'objective of the Chico Urban Area arandpOPtati I On Study Was to identity transportation
redict
future traffic levels in the Chico ase
P
im rovements thatwill be necessary to accommodate this 'future travel, demand...
n
3.2-1,
INTERSECTIONS
DESCRTAB'.E IPTION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR SITE
M,
LEV
OF
DESCRIPTION
SERI ICE
If, signalized, conditions are
Free flow (relatively) fully utilized by traffic
ism
r'
A
such that no approach phase
vehicle waits through ore than one red indication.
and no
Very slight r)r no del aY ,
Stable flow. �� kl.ized� an occasional approach phase
arc Toted. This
B
utilized; vehicle platoons
oses.
is fully design-purposes.
operation for rural design p P
level .is suitable
'
Slight delay.
C
Stable fla+ of operation, If signalized, drivers
� to wait through more than one red
have
occasionally may n
suitable operation for urban
This Ac epos
indication. able delay's
design Purpose_
Approaching unstable fl'Ow or, 'opera=tion, queues develop,
delay.
D
but. are quickly cleared. Tolerable
the intersection has reached
E
e e flat or operation-,
Unstable ration-,
this condition is not common in �,�ea+
u.1 ti capacity;
Congestion and intolerable delay.
hours.
flat or operation. Intersection operates belat
Forced
F
capacity. Jammed.
e,rt67.
tianual, ' �Ra Sg.. ci al R Po
1
.
source:-
..: � ai�b"city
.—�
r
r
r
r
The CATS information is to be updated and ,revised based ,upon the most current
data available and represents a basis from which cumulative traffic analyses
can begin. For �purposes of cumulative traffic impact analysis in the project , area, the CATS assumptions represent all reasonably foreseeable projects in
the area of potentially .environmental impact (Palmer, 1986). Table 3.2-3
presents existing and projected traffic volumes on major streets in the
project area. Figure 3.2-1 shows the major improvements required by the year
2000 according to the CATS. Figure 3.2-2 shows the major improvements
required by buildout of the General Plan capacity according to the CATS: The
following are the primary improvements identified in the CATS for the project
area. These improvements are expected by the year 2000,.'
- Widening of East, Avenue to four lanes between State Route 32; and
The Esplanade.
- Widening of East Avenueto six lanes between The Esplanade and State
Route 99. (Butte County questions the feasibility'of this. improvement.'
TM maximum feasible width of East Avenue in this location is expected
to be five lanes. Widening Would eliminate on street parking along East
Avenue in this location.)
Intersection improvements at Lassen/The Esplanade, Lassen/State Route
- 99, and The Esplanade/Cohasset.
The additional primary improvements in the project area identified in the CATS
for buildout of the General Plan caracity would be:
A new four lane connection between State Route 32 and State Route ;99 via.
g 99:
..Lassen. Avenue, i,neliadin anew interchange,at State Route
A -new two lane connection between State -Route 32 and State Route 99 via
Eaton iRoad
The following text from CATS clarifies traffic conditions and,planned
improvements in the Northwest Chico Subarea. Generally, the Northwest Chico
subarea Involves the area north of 11th Avenue and 'west of Cohasset-
': "The major bottleneck in the Northwest Subarea will be East Avenue, where
traffic of up to 55,000 vehicles per day is forecast: East Avenue will
have to carry all east -west traffic between the commercial areas on Nord
Avenue (State Route 32) and Cohasset Road. To avoid massive widening of
East Avenue, Lassen Avenue should be extended crest to Nord Avenue and be.
made a four lane arterial throughout. The existing sections of Lassen
Avenue would be widened from 40 to 48 feet except for under the ;freeway,
where the bridge abutments are only'52 feet apart. Such a parallel road,
which would also be linked to the Route S9 freeway, would attract as much
as 30% of the East Avenue traffic.
Further relief could be provided by extending Eaton Road west to !iota
Avenue. This would ,divert about 5,000 external trips a day between Route
32 and northeast Chico as 'well as two to gree thousand trips between Route
' 32 and the Route 99 freeway. Thus, With the Lassen and Eaton extenston"s,
about IjOOO trips would be diverted to Eaton, and around 15,1000 trips would
be diverted to Lassen, leaving only around 27,000 trips on East Avetwo,
3:2-x+
r
TABLE 3.2-2. EXISTING LEVELS OF SERVICE AT APPLICABLE INTERSECTIONS IN NORTH
CHICO DURING THE P.M. PEAK HOUR
P.M. PEAK HOUR
INTERSECTION
LEVEL OF SERVICE (a)
A (b)
East/SR 32
A (b)
'East/Kennedy
_
A (b)
SR 32/Kennedy
East/The Esplanade
NA
East/SR 99
A (.47)
North Ramp
A
South .Ramp
(.62)
East/Cohasset
The Esplanade/West Shasta
A (b)
p de/West Lassen
The Es lana
A (b)
The Esplanade/Henshata
B (b)
The Esplanade/Cohasset
C
a
3R
B (b)
99/Eaton
NA Not AVailable for descriptions of levels oP` sery ce intersections.
(a) See Table 3.2-1 p :for
(b) This level of service is assumed bythe city based on observations
counts have been.
rather than turning movement vol=esy because
no recent
performed (Derrick, 1985).
Sources. Derrick;,. 1986.
---------------------
Other necessary improvements in the Northwest Subarea include widening
Cohasset Road to four lanes between The Esplanade and Mangrove (adequate
right of way, exists along most its length), and making Eaton Road a four
lane
road. between The Esplanade and Cohasset" (City of Chico, 19$2•)
Another improvement which is .not mentioned in the CATS, but is anticipated by
the City of Chico, is identified in a CALTRANS "Route Concept Report" related
to State Route 32. In the project vicinity, this improvement would involve
Route 2 to four lanes, and the construction of bicycle
the widening State 3
lanes and left turn pockets. This project is at the bottom of the CALTRANS
Jtop ten priorities for construction between '1990 and 1995•
Trans ortaton Element of the Chico General :Plan. The Transportation Element
of the Chico General Plan is directed towards achieving a balanced
transportation system, which ensures convenient access for all Chico
residents, serves the -proposed patterns of land use, and minimizes disruption
of the environment. The discussions focus on: 1) the implementation of a
coordinated multi modal transportation systOm ac
eommodating private and public
1 _P
motor vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians; 2) the scenic enhancement of the
highway landscape; 3) the abatement of noise generated by transportation
systems; 14) safety;
and 5) separation of modal systems. Noise was not found
to be a significant environmental issue for the proposed project, according to
re ared by Butte County (.see Appendix 16.1). The following
the Initial Study p C
p nd
p nsportation Element,
e Tra
olica:es summarise th exist.n and proposed circulation systems accommodate
Insure that the g
the multi modal traffic functions they are intended to serve with a
minimum adverse impact on the environment of the city. Coordinate all
systems to maximize safety and efficiency and minimize conflict between
modes (see following
discussion on the Chico Area Transportation Study,
Traffic: Setting) .
Develop a public transit system responsive: to the needs of the greater
Chico community. Actively Promote the system as an alternative to
System is an existing servie
•r)
automobiles. �fihe Chico Area Transit _ possible,
Develop A'system of bicycle facilities that provides, where pose ,.
separate access to major destinations and assures the safety of all (;see
discussion on pedestrian and bicycle facilities;).
Protect and enhance the scenic qualities of State Routes 32 and 99 and
other major entry 'h'at's to the city. All new commercial development
adjacent to State goutes 82 and 99 should be adequately landscaped:
Circulation Element of the Butte. County General Plan. The Circulation Element
of the Butte 'County General Plan was prepared in 1984:4 The Element is a guide
to managing and developing the future transportation and circulation system in
the countyv the intended timeframe of the Element carries to the year 2000,
with analysis, evaluation, and Planning, focused on policies and programs
within five and ten year timefrates. The Element is 'organized into three
basic components. The first component, Part One -Basis for Policy, o intended
to be an Analytical And descriptive IDAsis for developing a transporttation
rtation Is
policy. Transposues and Policies; sets forth Butte County's
countywide and ltrbai area transportation goals, objectives, policies, and
programs to the; year 2000. The Appendices of the Ciretilat on Element eoniai n
32.;8
additional information and data supplements 'referred to. byBthe previous
text,
unty
including the Element's environmental .impact p The primary
Circulation Element Diagram is presented in Figure 3.2-3-
re 3.2-3 that relates to the
nstructec after the year 2000 the
improvement shown in Figure project area to .provide
Eaton Road extension which would be cot
additi=onal east, west .capacity in 'North
Chico.
The following p
olicies, programs and requirement,5 of the Bunte County
Circulation Element specifically relate to the project area and proposed
General Plan Amendment project:
2.1.2 Butte County will encourage and support sincere efforts by county
residents to form assessment districts for road maintenance and road
drainage.
evelopment will pursue the dof a comprehensive fiscal
2.2 .4 The county including for ;traffic or' road impacts, to
impact model or program,
assist in the analysis of cost and revenue balances from proposed
development projects.
will study, develop and imp '
lenient, as feasible
2p Program: The county rams, over time:
the following road related fiscal programs,
1) Road assessment districts for maintenance of new development.
2) Development fees for off site traffic impacts caused by Inew
development: This program should first develop plans and
schedules for specific d�:velogment's that will. contAr14�etb
termthe
impact of circulation in surrounding locations.
goal of a countywide developpertfee apragr am date.for comprehensive
cts
,
should be studied`and impl tideveloped
road development fee program's should be join ti
between the county ties of Butte County.
and the cities
3) Drainage assessment districts in problem areas.
4) Enforceable road development agreements-
4-1.4 Right of Way needed for Inew roads of would recluden of xtheihg timelyds
shall be planned for; land
use tha t
development of such right of way, shall be prohibited=
o ted as to most
4.1.6 Usable road easements of adequate width shall be located
beneficially serve the needs of all parcels.
4.i.8 Private subdivision roads Will be built tb .f county mantena and
standards
they will be priVately maintained, as such th gh
nce
' cycle.
4.10 New land divisions should be held. responsible for their fair share
.1
of the off site road improvements needed to handle the traffic .
increases that they cause.
3.2'-�
'' 3 2y-10
4.1.11 The county should encourage the. utilization of development
agreements as.one way of ensuring that road development standards
and plans'are met.
11.1.1The county' will maintain the integrity of the Chico Area Greenline
adopted in 1982.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. Pedestrian and bicycle activities
generated from within the project area are relatively low due to the ;low
density of development in the area.. No sidewalks or formal bicycle lanes exist
ng y y residential
along roadways in the area, but the low traffic. volumes and low
y Some
density make walking. and bicycling relatively safe activities.
difficulties are encountered by pedestrians and bicyclists atthe
in Avenue,.
he intersection
of, East Avenue and Esplanade and near Jay Partridge School
Lassen Avenue; ,and Cussick Avenue, south of Bell Road, are designated; as long
range Class ISI bikeways Class III is equivalent to a bike route With no on
street right of ways or improvements.
Public Transit. The Chico Urban Area is served by the Chico Area Transit
System. Regular scheduled bus service is provided near the project area by
Route 1, -which serves East Avenue and The Esplanade, east and south of the
project area-. The route 'serves North Valley Plaza Mall, both Chico hospitals,
and the Social Security office. The capacity of this route is equaled during
peak hour periods. No route changes are anticipated in the near future.
Intensification of development along, East Avenue and the increasing importance
of East Avenue as a key arterial; however, may result in a modification of
Route,1 or the addition of a new route serving properties along East Avenue,
between The Esplanade and State Route 32. No schedule for this improvement
has been adopted (Derrick, 1986).
The closest bus stop to the perimeter of the project area is locaeted at the
intersection of East Avenue with The Esplanade; approximately one! mile east of
the project area. Bus service weekdays is provided 'between 6:30 A.M. and 7:30
P'.M Saturday service is available between 8:30 A.Mi and 6:30 PM. Most
transfer points are .located in the downtown area. Regional transit service is
provided ,by Butte County Transits which operates routes from the City of Chico
to Butte College and the community` venters of Oroville and Paradise.
EmerRencY: Access. Access routes to and throughout the project area are
presented in Figure 3.2-1. No emergency` vehicle access restrictohacurrently
' exist within, or around the project area. However; the unconventional
intersections identified previously in this section present minor obstacles to
large vehicles, such as fire trucks,
IMPACTS
Trip Generation. The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow up to 270
new residential units to be approved in the project 'area, These residences
would generate approximately 2,700 trip ends (inbound or outbound) per day,
based upon a trip generation rate of ten trip ends per residenoe per day
(institute of 'Transportation tagineers, 1982): Peak hour trip generation frbkn
the 270 residential units would be approximately 270 trip ends during each of
the AM. and P.M: peak hour periods. The A:M. and P6M, peak hour periods are
the one hour periods with the highest traffic volumes between 6.30 and 8:30
r
If4rsr sent . T; =I evil r rsee, 'r m ee-ice/r i�ll�fr awI
%• °,
a 0-11
r •irr r
.,`i, "r S: � ,♦a♦t♦�' r wljiH�fru,rrirrr��iiiri♦tN• � Sewell.,TM
' .. .er , ♦♦, , , :, �� a ,. � » » •,a
r .t
♦ad ♦♦ • 11 ♦ •
• , 1
• r.' 'r �N 'J�{�j =1rs ' S '' i.S,,..• rN "` :ef \'i. � ♦r'b , a •
salt i, •, 7 � y>0 , HhYfY�ia: t...rt`!1 � f , • ► a+,♦ i
.r�'fa r �11iYlurl tt• J Gr , a�
t •,i, ♦ r ? t' ice, _f , yC ,..Yti' wwr...:3iirllfn;:,�!�� �1l« `tcj . x f
"i °,f t` / tf�l )� C pia C L$ .r,ffNlfll 4,
J _ . f
°•i �6.. �.�� �. ♦��� �� y ���; � a.rr♦ i..a•• 'fit, r f \.!a40 1- .s s sf °�' JIiNO f�;. �:x• r t,r.
,,n• \i J}r 9� ',.i� .. . �?: rp. �G!cl �'_ i»� tai a t�► tAY � 'v � yh
_ ^.ti a ♦� . Ari ;Ya • .' r� , tl• 11 ;r :.,'rl rifriiiiP r,,,,l li ip^� //y.. •}ti �':{ 01
sCi;�' v ,,; "'4';•It H� - -.
i a ♦.xr •� _ t r,�: /Y ' ."r 'u..` r++� , +r", ..r..w Y i 1. . +ry..e• •, s, /, fr r.. n. i
... ,. .. .Ix'\^''. 1�.' Yt �r r r i ►'i� s rf •+„ r
rt � . � ;\, " .'' yr „ r Y. % `,♦r 4 �,!!� f+ 1� r� y+:i � , i4..., r Ii ' N a Y^ � v
�°°rr. "f�: a. "� ��'k -' ;sz`. .aa`if h��'1 i..�r°ifl�'1:�•J�.i♦♦`�ri .i a'.N/���a.t+ila�'�°74r �x r.'�' ,a♦,,a ...ti ��tM rfr. `J V.
y r,♦K°
a '+•} y ... JS lU5 y • q� • •r_Y, �F:i .,u�' �� 1,,�� 4.•, �R' ♦r�✓` �`r�*f l ` tv- .�s.. • " i ry.�, ,f _,,..
*04h, .♦tg "` '%,r R H �, M�, �• /�� ` r:+; •, ti, t7 .ti..,w r • .
_ ,�„ t t . s` • 'lam �'�N.
y
y
} � �a � •.,r � � t<
`•a L``y v �
j � l
j
', �� . w r,� � 1. jri �,�� 'r°is�`�s' r `" 'I.rC �j�.�".. ��y� ���� +�{ �''• �♦ w. ,.
a) f^
�. `• , t f,J t'". C� 1 d ,,•'r�ir:yag,4 \Nf w°rti/,� %i: ^I`ry►�f`N/fff 61°� 1 y.
ot
J ai .r i.r• t 9` ay w.,iY 4
i. Lc
_ r � � � 1 r • is t�,♦ t •�"a x� f'i% ��� ,ci.L , i i i.J �
5,?,
i i tllNll • i ., s .i y a •a ir��aa d, �;�,
r
1 'f` S [ r
CLASS I (PATH) K:
y
iD •' w. ti
ff. f r. i �:. ■ CLA5b`' 1.1 yI.AN� ,.,, � � �'�4'"��!'�i�a �'' ' r'• : �c� �� �wi Y� ;�.
iYirrrirYriirrrf l UTE r �. "iP �� ° ' i, `, v ;�.+■. �, - •4 v �.
CLASS 11 01OUTO
i til , r ♦ a ri +rti t
ir.7•� �..� t r�sl ♦•�4rj• ��\�i�1a� N�'� � �� ��i� � `{♦gilrf�l�'1�i �r� ,,.r. .6'"� 1 '.�`_-�--±a."fi �� y!
(T I `L 3 4 •L r l� R �y��r�•,J,"�,�! w F '.irp� ,�.• Y 'y, ,�, r� y,,,,r'ry r -p fff r Jj�:crr. ,h �1
,� .... ..... +". tk i ,ts i . ' "+ i`i r� ,r.: � " .•Y�0'r ° Rrii','. r r' ✓i 4i .'i" i rr
�...... � � � � � 1J�'°PrY �� :iR1 °♦ •. am
y♦ /r ,•fir J 'r+ '. � ate { � Y �� � q '
..��� P. ., .fi ;,f a.•Si •' d.'�,° AA •"911�w` y Y
SCALE . r
a S ,
•r ' r
AN 1►iOusAf�RJS �1F' .FET ,. • "' �: f .' *. ;�. {�� '� � �N�•H ��►y� r , Y f (� iY�i . tP
-.. eertlh
metrics ViOttkt 3, 24 BIKEWAYS' PtA o� THE CatCO GgNgRAi� PtiAf
and 4:00 and 6:00 P.M. Trip generation from reasonably foreseeable
projects, in the area bounded by Lindo Channel, State Route 32, the proposed;
Eaton Avenue extension and Esplanade', (see Appendix 16.9), is expecwted 4.0 te
approximately 17,500 trips. The trips generated by the project represent
approximately 15 percent of these reasonably foreseeable trips.
Trip Distribution. The totalnumber
ftrips generated by the proposed
by
project (2,700 'trips) were whin the existing roadway system
making general assumptions about where new vehicle trips wouid be destined..
The primary assumptions were as follows;
- Five percent of all trips would use State; Route 32 north of Muir Avenue.
20 percent of all trips would use State Route 32 south of East Avenue.
70 percent of all trips :could use Wert Shasta (10%), West Lassen (10%),
Henshaw (15%) and East Avenue (35%) for travel east of Cussiek.
Five percent of all trips would use Guynn Avenue (2.5%) and Cussick-
Avenue (2.5%) south of East Avemie..
1 the expected incremental iicre66e in vehicle volumes
Table 3.2-1 presents '
projected to occur from 270 additional residential units in the project area•
Table 3.2-5 presents the relative impact expected with and without the
proposed project on
the circulation system.
Traffic. donditions. The addition of up to 970 residential units to tie
project area would incrementally increase the traffic V01=ea on area
roadways. - 'his additional traffic .Ftculd add to projected volumes in t,ze
project vi.: S4 The following and would' decrease
Cdiscussions clarifyvwheretimpacts�could occur as
interseetfc�ns:
a result of the additional trips generated by the project in one future year
(2000)
STATE ROUTE 324 The additional trips generated by deVelopment allowable under
the proposed General PlaneAmenlment would increase the number of left turns
from East Averuc to 'State Route 32, would invrease tr•affie on the east/west
portion of Kennedy Avenin:, and would increase traffic at the State Route 32j -
Muir Avenue intepr�ection: Although these impacts would reduce travel capacity
somewhat Along ° State Rcut'o 32, they would no be considered significant and
would not require mitigation, such AS signals or turn lanes, due to the
relatively low traff�m volumes involved and the "remaining capacity, of 'these
interseotions. Planned, ,long term trafTic improvemtnt3, along State Route 320
such as those improvements included in the CALTRANS "Route Concept Report",
shall be 'constructed to maintain acceptable levels of sorviee in the future
(see Mitigation Measures)r,
EAST AVENUE=
East Avenue would carry a ,large portion of the trips generated
by the urban growth anticipated by the year 2000 and the residential growth
allowable :=-der the proposed projedt. The additional traffic at the west end
of PA, 04
st�nAvenue
revioesnsedted disvlssiontpertaihe ninGd orState Route 3E) Howect -vioLujd. hot 'be. evAri the
(see th, p
additional traffic created at the intersections of East Avenue with Nord,
Guynn, Alamo, and Cussick, The Esplanade and State Route 95 t3ould reduce
3:2-13
3:2-14
n
TABLE 3.2-4 • ESTIMATED FUTURE ,DAILY TRAFFIC
INCREASES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PROPOSED PROJECT'
PROJECT UENERATED
ROADWAY.SEtMEhT
JEHICLE TRIPS (a)
EAST AVENUE,
II
i
SR 32 to Cussick
500 (b)
1 Cussiok to The 'Esplanade
950
to 99
TheSR
500
setSR
99staaCohasde
450
4
THE ESPLANADE
Eaton to Lasseh
100
Lassen to East.1040
500
'
East to Cohasset
STATE ROUTE 32
North oZ' Muir
135
Muir to East
100
540
South of East
I' WEST SHASTA
2'j0
WEaT LASSEN
210
HENSHAW
400
(South of ,East
GUYNII (Sou
70
i
UUSSICK
West Shasta to 'Renshaw
,zea
Henshaw to East
150
YO
South of :East
(a) Represents the i.nerease in
traffic in both directions on
duoremontal
to the &veld went
these roadways P
allowed by the proposed prb,leot6
Source:' Earth Metrics Incorporated, 1986.
3:2-14
r
r_
TABLE 3.2-5. EXISTING AND
PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUMES GN MAJOR STREETS THE
PROJECT AREA
WITH AND WITHOUT THE
PROPOSED PROJECT
,IN
STREET SEGMENT,
EXISTING
_FUTURE (2000).
FUTURE (2000)
R
DAILY VOLUME (a)
DAILY VOLUME
DAILY VOLUME
W/O PROJECT (b)
W/ PROJECT
i EAST AVENUE
"
SR 32 to Dixon/Cussick
9,716
15,500
16,000
Dixon/Cussick to The Esplanade
The
11,257
26,700
27,650
Esplanade to SR 99
SR 99 to Cohasset
16,340
20 ar00
30,200
'
12076
1,,600
19,050
THE ESPLANADE
rEaton
to Lassen
Lassen to East
8,170
18,500
18,600
r
East to Cohasset2
14,684
6'05 6
26,800
250800 (e)
27,300
26,840
STATE ' ROUTE' _ 2
North of East
South of East
NA
12,700
12835
.2, 835
9,606
1,u00
11040 !
r _
1981 Volumes increased
(ai 1986.
b two ,` ^"
Y percent per year for "five years, Derrick,
Cb) From the Butte County
Cc:}
Circulation Elemetat,
198u.
Indicates and erestimated'future
volume ()r overestimated existing volume.j
NA. Not Available
r
Source Earth Metrics 1985,, Butte �uUnty Ci3'culaton Element, 1984;
Derrick, 1986,; and
Piercer 1986:
r
1
r
levels of service r .e --
at these locations. tions.
Specific measures to maintain
Acceptable levels of service in these locations are "recommended under
Ma.
•tigation Measures in this section.
THE ESPLANADE. The: additional traffic generated on West Lassen, West Shasta,
Henshaw, and East Avenue would Affect travel capacity along The Esplanade by
increasing left turn conflicts at main intersections. The impacts of this
traffic at The Esplanade intersections with West Shasta would not be
considered significant and would not require mitigation due to the relatively
low traffic volumes involved and the remaining capacity at this signalized
intersection. However, the loss of travel capacity at. the intersections of
The Esplanade/Weft Lassen and Esplanade/Henshaw would require mitigation.
Consistency with Local Transportation Planning. The proposed project does not
present any significant impacts which would substantially alterthe land use'
data bases utilized for transportation planning in the Chico area. However,
the existing data bases did not anticipate the proposed development density in
the project area. The construction of the Eaton Road extension would not he
affectedby the proposed General Plan Amendment or related development but
Windencourage urban density and would increase traffic in the project area
inthefuture. The impacts of the extension would be examined and miB
;ci ated
Prior to approval of such a project. The 'feasibility and desirability of the
Lassen Avenue extension through the project area would be altered by the
proposed project. Mitigation would be required to address this impact.
The proposed General Plan Amendment appears to be inconsistent with the policy
maintain theintegrityof the Chico Area Greenline (see that Section 3.1, Land Use,
Planning; Applicable Plans and Policies for a discussion of the Chico Area
nline). The Circulation Element+s intent in maintaining the Chico Area
G;reenline is probably to reduce trip generation in areas of low urban density
Where roads would require substantial improvements to meet county standards.
The remaining policies and requirements presented in the Existing Setting of
this report address financing of roadway improvements. Many of these measures
Apply directly to roadway improvements recommended as mitigation measures in
thisPedestrian urian andL Bicycle Facilities. The proposed project Would increase
pedestrian and bicycle activities by allowing increased urban density in the
project area. The projected increases would not be expected to create°
significant safety impacts or vehicle .conflicts on local roadways, such as
Henshaw Avenue: Incremental safety impacts along major arterials would
potentially be significant. Project related bicycle activity and motor
i vehicle trips would increase the heed for appropriate bikeways and pedestrian
street erosaings along major arterials, such as 'Hast Avenue, especially, near
Jay Partridge Elementary School New crossings by elemehtary school students
taottld be limited and temporary becatzse `these erossirks would be reduced by`
busing, the crossings would ocduli at"Ibighdied crossing's With re? atively logit
cross 'street traffic and beeause'`the District intends 'td donstruet a'new
sschool north of East Avenue and gest of Ae Espiaihade in the fut ee. Older
tudents would cross The Esplahade at East Avenue. near`Jay Partridge S6hool
Although these stlidents� present A lobs signifieaht safety impact than younger
students; the potential for conflicts is still impo'rtat t. The U66 of A paid:
orbssing guard at pertain hours of the day could mitigate podesti'ian crossings
near Jay Partridge, School. This safety measure is u
rrntlyin
at McManus Elementary School..' Funds foie such a measureenear Jaylied Partridgeico
School have not been directed toward this activity because of other budget
Priorities (Hensley, 1987):
blie. Transit. Thero osed
p p project would allow development which could.
increase patronage of Route 1 of the Chico Area Transit System. However,
because the distance between most of the project area and the closest bus stop'
is more than one mile, many of the residents may not utilize the bus service.
Impacts ;from the future development are not expected to be significant, but
would incrementally increase transit denand along the East Aveni:F, corridor.
If cluster development is proposed, measures to encourage transit patrona$e
should be required during site plan review.
EmerAenev Aceesr and Circulation. The additional dwelling units allowed ;by
the proposed General Plan Amendment would' increase the need for emergency
service access to the project area. Unconventional intersections in the
i project area should be realigned ,to improve turning movements.
,MITIGATION MEASURES aphY following measures are recommended ommended by the staff of
i3utte County and the The
of Chico to mitigate the traffic impacts identified
in this section.
The applicants t should be required to q pay for all costs associated with
r g
reals nnient of each of the unconventional intersections in the project
vicinity. Timing for specific realignments should be determined by the
Bunte County Board of Supervisors. Realignments at the following
intersections should be completed with buildout of the area: J3e11/Muir;
Bell/1Tord, Bell/Gwynn; Bell?Alamo and Rodeo/Nord. The total cost is
expected to be approximately $6;2,50. it realignments are coordinated With
Other road improvements.
The applicants should be required to improve the roads in the prQ eet
area to the standard set by the Butte County Planning Commission and
Board of Supervisors. The applicable standard would be SRS -1 if the;
county requires minimum parcel sizes equal to or greater, than 1.00 1
acres rural development standards. The applicable standard for i.0 acre
Parcels and urban standards is Rs -2) which includes sidewalks; curbsand
guttars (storm drainage ihfrastrueture). The timing for the required
improvements should be det.ermiaed by the Butte County Board of
Supervisors. improvements' to the following roadway segments should be
completed with buildout of the areae Muir, from SR 32 to Bell, Rodeo,
from Muir to Henshaw; Nord) Gwynn and Alamo, from Bell to East; Arid
Henshaw, from Nord to Alamo. The City of Chico would request that these
roadways meet the standards of the city or Bounty; whichever are more
stringent, The total cost is expected to be approximately to
achieve the SR8=1 Standard. and $2,262j$25 to achieve the R6-2 standard.
W The applicants should be required to contribute funds for the
construction of 'eft turn pockets abd for the elimination of on street
parking Along Esplanade at Henshaw; and along Esplanade at Lassen: The
total cost_for this improvement is expected to be approxiim%tely'
$20000. An additional $632 Mould be required if ,signal modifications
3+2-17
Vere required. This contribution is a nro- rata share based on the
project's traffic increment compared to the total traffic volume, and a
$15,000 cost for signal modification.
The ,applicaP'3 should be required to contribute funds for the
installation, of traffic signals at the following intersections
(East/Nord, East/Gwynn, East/Cussick, and East/Alamo). The total cost
for these improvements is expected to be approximately $10,125. The
contribution is a pro rata share based on the projects traffic
Increment compared to the total traffic volume;
The applicants shouldbe required to contribute funds for iridening East
Avenue to allow for five lanes (central continuous left turn lane).
This requirement would involve a 13 foot widening from Alamo halfway to
Gwynn, and a 26 -foot widening from SR' 32 halfway to Gttynn. Sidewalks,
curbs and gutters would not be required of the applicants, but a pro
rata contribution of funds (based on traffic) for, a storm drainage
,culvert would be required. The total cost for these improvements is
expected to be $132,643.,
Site design criteria which increases opportunities for transit patronage
should be encouraged if specific development proposals involve clusters
of development..
- Access to the future 'Extension of Eaton Road should be provided via Bell
Road. Intersections with Hord, Guynn and Alamo should not be encouraged
Unless future land Use intensification a.nd related roadway improvemet" s
occurrior to extension of these roadways.
P ,
The following measures are Peeomended to mitigate' cumulativ� 4;raffid impacts
expected as a result of developmeta in the project vicinity c-nd buildout: in
the project vicinity and Chico Urban Area.Butt
~ f'romedevelopety rs;d the FHWAC=ty anciof Chico CALTRA2J5sfor18 aequii a appropriate funding
long range traffic imP rovement
programs as required by the Cu hty Circulation Element and CATS.
•* The r;,,.ty of Chico and Butte County should review the Chaco Urban Area
Transportation Study's recommehdation for extending Lassen Avenue west
to state Route 32q Funding for such an improvement would be difficult
without ,further Oi4bsity indteas;e ; or an area wide funding district. if
this. proposd1 is determined to be a long range requirement, Butte County
would reuire� ro�ert�
q P P y" 'dedications for right -of -gray prior to development
in the
area.
The Ch
td pChico unified School District should Mitigate 'safety impacts related
estril3n and bicycle eryssings near Jay Parteidge Scbaol. 'paid
crossing',guards could be used to mitigate existing and p&6'je,dted "safety
conditions with or without the proposed peojoct.
3.3 GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY
EXISTING SETTING
■
Geology. The project area is located on :a broad alluvial, plain known as the
Chico Fan, which is located in the northern Sacramento Valley between the
Sacramento River to tho west and the Sierra Nevada Foothills to the east. The
project area is underlain by Recent Age coarse grained alluvium consisting of
unconsolidated silt, sand, gravel and cobbles. The coarse grained alluvium is
overlain by a loamy surface soil layer and is underlain by a;erra Revada
foothill metamorphic and volcanic rocks.
SOILS.. Surficial soils occurring in the project area are composed primarily
' of loams belonging to the Vina Farwell association (USDA, 1976). The Vina
Farwell association is characterized by good natural drainage, moderately slow -
to moderate subsoil, permeability, slow to medium runoff 'and no erosion hazard.
The Vina Farwell association also possesses a moderate shrink/swell
(expansion) potential, a measure of the volume change of,a soil with a change
in_ moisture content, and a moderate allowable soil ,pressure rating, a measure
of suitability of a soil for foundation pressure.
The Soil Conservation Service identifies and rates the agricultural potential
and limitations of soils into eight land capability 'classifications.. Soils in
Classes I to IV are considered agricultural., and soils in Classes V to VIII
possess characteristics which limit agricultural uses and are better suited
for forestry, range, wildlife ,or recreation. The Vina Farwell soils have been
identified as C p agricultural
lass I and II rime soils.
Portions of the project area also contail surridialsoils composed of clay
loans belonging to the Conejo Berrendos association. The Conejo Berrendos
az2toeiation soils are characterized by good natural drainage, moderately slow
to alow subsoil permeabilityslow 'runoff and no erosion hazard. However,
when these soils are compactedy they Can become highly impermeable (,Edell,
1986). The Conejo BerrendO6 soils also possess moderate to high shrink/swell
f potential and moderate allowable soil pressure The Conejo Berrehdos soils
are Class ZIT', prime agricultural, soils.
SEISMICITY. The Chico area does not have` a history of sevbve seismic activity
(City of Chico;, 1975). There are no active or potentially active faults or
Alquist Prinlo Special Studies Zones located in the Chico area, which includes
the project area. There is—no record of surface rupture oocureing in Chico.
In addition, tiers it no documented history of ground failure, such as
liquetactiori,'lateral spreading, lurching and differential settlement in
Chioo. ..
The Cleveland Hill fault the only known active fault in Butte County, is
located approximately 30 miles southeast of the project area. Movement along
the Cleveland Hill fault Wasresponsible for the 5.7' magnitude ;(Richter Seale)
Oroville earthquake in August, 1975. 'The_Oi�oville earthquake was felt in
Chico, but no damage was reoorded. A series of short, north/northwest,
trending inactive faults are located approximately ten miles northwest of the
project area.
i
I- 3•�=1
I
In addition to the 1975 Oroville earthquake, ground shafting from earth wake
picenters outside the immediate area ;has been felt previously in the Chico
area.However, the greatest intensity of ground shaking recorded in Chico was
5.0 on the Richter Scale and there is no historical evidence of any
significant damage having occurred. A statistical estimation
Richter Scale magnitude, as 'a function of estimated returnpe of earthquake
period for
California, .indicates Chico could. experience an earthquake of magnitude 8.0 on
the Richter Scale once every 140 years. Other studies have,.,however, suggested
smaller maximum intensities (City ,of Chico, 1976)
Hydrolo�zv
DRAINAGE. The overall topography in the project area slopes gently to the
DRAINA
northwest toward Mud Creek, which is located approximately one mile northwest_
Of the project area. vindo Channel is located approximately 0.75 miles south
of the project area. At
facilities within the present, there are no existing storm drainage
project area.: Overland runoff in the project area ponds
and percolates into the soil. There are no well defined,surface drainage
courses,in the project area. See Section 3.4j Public Services and Utilities,
for a discussion of existing and planned storm drainage facilities -in the;
Project`
area.
A Storm drainage study completed for the north Chico area, including the
Project area, has recommended installation of collector storm drain lines just
south of the Soutbern Pacific Railroad and along Bell Road in order to
accommodate potential Urban development of the storm drainage st4dy ares (see
Figure 3.44-1) These collector lines would flow by gravity to sf,�uAtt union
Drainage Assessment District (SUDAD) channels which would ultimata l5.t,�: urge
into Mud: Creek (Rolls, Anderson & Rolls, _1985)• The proposed col:L60tor .lines
have been designed to cparry 100 year storm flows, in accordance with Butte
development density Department
and Butte County Improvement Standards. The
County Public Works De artment
assumptionfor the project area was two to six dwelling
units per acre. One or more dwelling units per acre (ori lot si.;es of less
than 1.001 acnes); is the threshold density at which underground drainage
facilities are needed (Rolls A;Iderson, Rolls,. 1985,, Edell, 19$6). If storm
drainage infrastructure is required in the project Vidi'nity, annexation to
MAD would be required prior to the use of their facilities:
OO Departure subject parcels are hot located in the 100 year t
FLOODI?1G: The :floodplain
nt of Ho Using and Urban Devalapment, 1974). Mud Creek and Undo
Chanb l are modified ephemeral channels designed to proV'iee flood control tor
Big Chico Creek: The project area mays hoVever'j be subject to minor,
localized stormwatee ponding due to the lack of drainage -Weasteu6ture hd
soil Compaction.
GROUNDFIATER. The project area 'and Chico vicinity is underlain by extensive
groundwater supplies of the Sacramehto Valley groundwater basin (California
Department of dater Resources, 1080). Section 3.4, Public Services and
Utilities, dontains a'discussion oj' watde supply and distribution in the
project area. ,There are three water bearing zones beneath Chico. These zones
ere the shallow intermediate, and deep agUirors: Groundwater generally moVes
westerly and downward from the shallow to ,intermediate aquifer and from the
intermediate to deep' agUittr ,
3:3-2
The shallgroundwater
. The shallow less than 20 feet
below round7surfacetinnthickaalluvial ma depths
low zone receives
dwater at de
g
recharge directly for infiltration of precipitation, streamflow, domestic
' wastewater from leachfields, and urban runoff from drainage wells.
Groundwater .in the -intermediate aquifer occurs at depths 20 to 50 feet below
the ground surface in older alluvium, The intermediate aquifer receives
recharge ,from streams incised in older alluvium, through vertical leakage from
overlying saturated alluvium and possible subsurface inflow from the Tuscan
Formation:
- The deep aquifer is located in the sand and gravel of the Tuscan Formation,
which is confined 'by less permeable clay, tuff and mudflow layers. The deep
aquifer, which yields large amounts of groundwater to deep irrigation and
' municipal wellv�, receives recharge mainly from streams that drain the foothill
area east of Chico (CDWR, 1984).
Since 1961, recharge of the local groundwater basin generally has exceedec',
' local discharges in the Chico region, in contrast to other localities in the
Sacramento Valley groundwater basin which have experienced an overdraft.
Groundwater tables in the Chico area were lowered by an estimated 10 feet
between 1912 and 1961 as a result of intensified agricultural irrigation, but
have ninde stabilized, or have risen between two and six feet (Butte County,
1982).
wWATER QUALITY. Specific water quality data, are not available for project area
surface tauter or groundwater. However, three wells in the area have been
tested (see Table 3.3-0. Runoff from the subject parcels would be expedted
tto contain minor amounts of sediment and contaminants characteristic of
agricultural and urban development in the area.
' Groundwater in the deep aquifer is generally of good,mineral quality,
reflecting the excellent mineral quality of surface waters in creeps which.
P $ g
rovide groundwater reehar e. Poorer quality groundwater is found in parts of
shallower aquifers with nitrate eoncentraLions exceeding 'drinking 'water
standards: of 45 milligrams per liter (mg/1.) (CDWR, 1984). Nitrates are toxic
to humans., pa. -titularly children less than three to six months old:
Each area, of high nitrate concentrations (one is located 6.75 miles northeast
and another is located 0.15 miles south of the project, area) underlies
unsewered, residential areas and also lies in the direction of geouhdwater flow
' individual die osal s stems �hich return s discussed below). The 'numerous
from urban development drainage wells (As
Wastewater Containing
nitrogen, phosphorus and chlorides to the shallow groundwater zone, are a
major source of the elevated nitrate concentrations: There are also more than
40 known drainage wells at offsite locations that return to the shallow
groundwater zone surface Water runoff from areas of inadequate burface water
6rainage systems (CDWR, 1984)
7"o re661ve the existing nitrate problem in the Chico area and prevent
iLdd tional Water 'quality impairment of valuable groandwater resources in the
area, the CDWR recommended that (1) unsawered residential areas in the Chico
area connect to the existing sewerage system as soon as feasible, and (2)
construction of additional drainage wells "should be -'prohibited and all
existinrecommendationsgeertain tooaldro ri�at�iwelldeonstrur as feasible. Of her study
B be As sooh
p pp p 8
shallow Aquifer groundwater qu4lity (C11WR, 1980 . tion and monitoring of -
3 ' 3�3
TABLE 3.3-1. NITRATE DATA IN 'THE PROJECT VICINITY
A
NITRATE
gramsONerNliter)N
LOCATION (a) WELL IDENTIFICATION CODE
(milligrams P (b)
q
4 Bay Avenue (east) 16-M-1
3.5 and 14
Bay Avenue 16-E-1
G1
BetWeen Lassen and Shasta 16-K-1
u0
Between Lassen and Shasta 16-K-2
35
end Shasta 16-G-2
BetweenLassen ., -
b2
�.
Nord 17-P-1
9 and 10
Muir 17-N-2
17-M_1
49 and 33
Muir
i
is
(a) The Butte County Health Department :is mapping these well, sites and
were provided.
correlating the data. No further location
descriptions
rd
(tj Tresentedhe tWhere
Two values are
been tested ttfice. The--
ntraterconeentrationssh45/1•
presented ave
in this table may
refleot,the depth of the well
doneentratians presented
rather than a higher contaminaticn'level.
Source: Reid, 19$7.
33-'
The City of Chico and Butte County have adopted a Nitrate Action Plan -for the
Greater Chico Urban Area (Butte County and City of Chico, 1985). The goal of
the Nitrate lection Plan is to prevent further degradation and to minimize the
existing nitrate problem in the groundwater. The primary objectives of the,
Nitrate Action Pian are to jointly develop a Sanitary Sewerage Plan and a'
Storm Drainage Plan for the Chico area.
rThe sewerage plan would include standards and requirements for sanitary
sewerage facilities, land use designations and density maximums for nonsewered
areas, and a time, schedule for requiring the elimination of septic tanks and
connection to the sanitary sewerage system. Density maximums have not
defined for the project area at this time (Reid, '1587) . The drainage
would include standards for the elimin6,tion of all existing drainage wells and
standards for the installation o;f'temporary drainage facilities, such as leach
fields. The Butte County Health`Department curr=ently allows no more than
three dwelling units per acre in areas to to temporarily served by% septic
tank/leach field systems. This standard ' apP'lies'to areAs that will eventually be served by'a sewer system.
A feasibility study of providing sanitary sewer service to the norta Chico
e' area, including the project area, recommended installation of a trunk sewer
which would;_ accommodate potential urban development of the arsa., Ofo ls,
Anderson, Rolls study). The trunk sewer, which would pass appred'Simately 750
ae',� a treatment plant in, Chico. However, financing :or im lemeutation o
feet northwest of the project area,,would connect the project area to the
� p ► g p f
this plan is uncertain at this time (Tuttle, 1988`. The ongoing Brown and:
Caldwell bdwa& study does not include the Bel i fit it .Property.
IMPACTS
Residential
le
P a result of the !General Plan
Amendment and amendmenteoftheCh co Area Green Line would have ;no significant
impacts on the geologic setting of the project area,
SOILS. Surficial, soils Iodated in
the project a; -,;+,t; would notp"resent.
significant development constraints to potential i^esidential development
resulting from the General Plan Amendment. Potential impacts due to the
moderate shrink/swell potential and moderate allowable soil pressure of the
project area soils (the V'ina Parwell and Conejo BelVendos associations) -could
be reduced to insignificant levels with implementation of standard engineering
' design and construction methodsi the loss of prune agriculture soils is
discussed in Section 3.1, Land Use, Planning, and Applicable Plans and
Policies.
The Rina Farwell and Cone o Berrendos soils
j do not pt-)ssess an erosion hazard.
due tothelevel nature of the project area, Potential construction related
erosiorr occurring with disturbance of the soils could be reduced to
insignificant levels with standard erosion control practices. Potential urh:0
development on minimum one acre parcels would hot involve unusual or, extens
grading or soil redistribution, further minimizing potential 'erosional
imacts The expected pected grading'and soil redistribution would simply involve
cuts for Use,toUhdAtionb and minor fill for landscape purposes. (See Section 3:1.,
Landhgr pp ;'w Plans and Policies, fora discussion of
' tent ag- p p posed projeot,)
potential ricultural m acts as a result of the ro