Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 5 OF 21ANALYSIS OF I IPACTS Project ,impacts generally raLl into three categoric, ; I Construction related. These are imp tict:: t%,hlc'h kvoald result t ,Croft road and homc5 i to const ruct ioll ;Ic t ii' i t :es i.e. vegetation removal and eros�ort/ticclintc^t�`t;tt oil, 2) Travel_ related. These impacts would rosult Froni tr Yvol to and from the development aver the l i Cc of the pro je,ct, i.e., irasoline consumption and mobile air pol- lutant emissions. 3) Habitation related.. These are impacts which would occur clue to the presence of increased nu11111c t•s o people :on the pr'o�leet site. They, a1;:o,trottlLl uGcui over the life of the project. thcluded are demand for public, services, domestic energy, and ►vatO1.11 sewage disposal., capacity; exposure to geoloi;ie hazards and specific public health problems (mosquitoes, rattlesnakes, etc.) and long-term effects on wild- life. Tri the opinion of the report writers, each of these im- pacts can be reduced to a level. ;of insignificance for this pro- ject by implementing the mitigation measures inclLded earlier .in this.report: Some, however; cannot be totally avoided (see previous page These individually minor impacts take on much greater significance ,When considered on a cumulative basis. Lwq density residential development. is widespread in the foot- hills oothills of Butte County, and taken as a whole, this type of development creates significant impact related to eros5.on/ sedimentation, loss of wildlife habitat, dcatand fbr public services (especially police and fire prote t ion), and trans portation related energy consumption and air, pollution, It should be noted that most of these impacts tvoulcl occur re- gardiess of where residential devol.oppient occurs, :but the level of significance is generally much lower in an urban area. Additionally, mitigation measures are tykpicatt'V tltore easily applied or enforced in established urban areas, Canyon Park llstates EER, 81­31.' (No4ember 1980)' P BETWEEN OCAL SHORT-TERM F MAN'S y HM ENTbANDQTHEIb AINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT UOFSLONG-TERM ENVIRON- MENT The protection of prime agricultural land is the major concern in assessing short-term vs. long --term environmental goals in California. Although this project site has some nearly level land, on: -site soils are not considered. to be prime or potentially prime. In addition, most of the open and nearly level areas will remain as open space: Another concern in assessing environmental goals is the energy efficiency of the project. New housing can be con-structed to meet energy efficiency criteria, especially with solar designs. However, overall efficiency is affected by the energy consumption for daily travel to and from the pro ject site,. Since the ;primary destinations are located about �t ll energy 11 efficiency= of the 1_ miles away; in Chico, the overs project is less than that of a similar sized project within or adjacent to the urban area. However, due to the small number of dwelling units and the short travel distance ;from Forest Ranch to the project site, this impact is not considered to be highly significant. Short-term effects of the: project include an economic gain for the developer and an increase in construction activity and related employment opportunities. Some economic benefits r will also be accrued by the county and some local businesses Long-term effects, include the essentially irreversible conversion of open space to rural residential conditions and an incremental addition to'the- "cumulative impacts on public services caused by land development in the foothill areas; CUMULATIVE IMPACTS site -related environmental impacts have been reduced. below a level of significance through project design Butte County; however, is concerned about the cumulative impacts of a number of developments proposed between Forest Ranch and Chico because of budgetavy constraints upon County services. A review of projects under consideration in 1980 indicated that the County approved ofily 1 of 5 parcel ,splits proposed for the general area. Currently, however, there are at least 3 major proposals under review or in preparation, Canyon Park Estates proposes 109 units on 1,100± acres, (see F1,gure 5) with primary access onto Humboldt Road, 800 feet West of its Inter - Section With Highway 32. This project is a 'planned area cluster ,and will. have Cor- Unity hater and sewage disposal.' 14 Mile Mouse PA -C' M) 82-42 (March 1982 X28_ systems., Two other projects, Isom -Hall and Bidw e11 Heights, are still in the de-;ign stage. The Isom -Hall land project proposes, 1,10-125 �c.'s with access to Highway 32 via Santos Way and presumably, will also ,have community wager and sewer t systems The Bidwell Hei hts proposal is in an; earlier stage of design with, a potential for 250--500 dwelling units plus a small, commercial store;. This proposal will include'a .tire: station with 1 or 2 fire engines and a volunteer fire department to assist in meeting a critical need as de-ielopment Bidwell heights may induce1grrowtheof anhadditionass lr200dor by proceeds r more dwelling units, The contribution to cumulative impacts of 21 units in the Fourteen ;bile House project is 2.410 of the potential 500 t proposed betty een Forest Manch and Chico. The com- munity sewer 'and water districts and volunteer fire department will reduce some impacts upon County -services, although no propo.Mals are evident to reduce impacts upon the sheriff's department. Establishment of numerous water; sewer and other special: districts or homeowners associations throughout the county" Can pose some potential problems. State and; loCal health officials. needfirm assurances that properly qualified, certificated in dividuals'ate ;in charge of sewer and water systems and that funds are available for proper maintenance and accessory repairs or replacements. If this cannot be guaranteed, the countycould q ,t g fiscal liabilities for any - deficiencies -or system failures Recommended Aiitgations Butte County should establish benefit (%tnpact) assessment fees to be collected by the Couity and oversee contract employees OT compariie5 retained to provide services to the various Special districts ' ,,toy-` � � ��',. �' ti•j � t� t � " +.... _ } a 1 `. r cros i y � t .0 jt se Mit ��. � F • �y 1&ID 2: PROJECT SITE lit le. X l� t t : t . li• HUUMC � � i r " 1'±wp 4hd*t ow ' n Aoa NICHOLS , W .. r �)j JJ 5 a- ' " . �. M. .. �� �, � ..� a 4, . 1 `� i j • ��l 3 +� • ) a ' 3 � a_,».! � t, Sul r • 3� !. 1 () w. � � � r - + R9T ri i r � f ,,, ?� �'• � yw fi' 1 .A1C , � s ��, d' 1F � , Al l 6t At �f�iT.�i�` '«._iA� ••���� ':`'� � +* d� �t.tY 1, I • " . � �`' M?+ V •. ,� � y , i p 1 r Vit' '"► �S� F � : �� 3� a I r �f., ; � c 'd C w ..o tea• 2 C tj.° r y" •• 4n^ 1 w— 4> tit y �rrst^+ r AD 1 fS .cAi t s 6 FIGURE .V't ��=L �`•/,�.• � �E' m`� a q3x. PR®POSED B� ELO!P��5NTS :Z: p IN i'HE PP®JEC A REA r y ���++4�l.tte' w •w .� Q _ y; M{LES tested to date, should be accomplished in the near future. It is further recommended that additional well locations be determined and, if deemed necessary, additional wells 'be drilled prior to i tentative approval for a PA -C rezone and tentative subdivision for the property. As part of the test pumping for the wells, professional advice should be sought as to the potential effect of "drawdown" occurring on downstream wells. At this point, such comments are p p' p g. Procedure speculative without ro e�,- tes-tin This rocedure has previously been followed in the Forest Ranch area. Loss of underground water for domestic use by Stilson Canyon residents is not expected to be a significant impact from this project; the testing procedure utilized in the Forest Ranch area would be a way to provide a definitive response to this concern.. III. Open Space Considerable discussion has occurred on this subject. A land trust has been recommended as the best --means to maintain the open space in perpetuity. �tai.ntenance of the .open pace via the .Homeowner's Association has not been considered an adequate procedure by the planning Commission. Additional discussion on the land trust 'procedure is contained in the minutes of recent ru�etings before the Planning Commission and the 3'oard of Supervisors. iv. Tinirt,g of the'Proiect The timing of this project and the meed for the homesites that would be provided is a question that must be addressed through the public hearing process, The Butte, County General Plan requires that j �to theproects ber need for, homesites� within a particular project, within the next Zd years. InforMatioti is prouided in the Elk Is in this regs,rd additional Appendix 11 - Canyon Park. ..b s Estates BIR, 81=31 (April 1082 dµ� 2 V "YeaJ a p4 t tk � "f ,• F 1 'ryI r; Y 6 s w 14 � , FS urt.<rir�tf. His 915 x o t oi 2'Z36 q•� Y V ' sq a p4 t tk � "f ,• F 1 � l' . � r cros r N r ! , " �all lit � tlAf Anr i .T�. Q, � er k l+ r i "4. •`.. PP. -%o =EC 1. SITE R • ii NiC11OLS39 �, 1 j " l • . S r •. , r� � •t, l 1�� t z 4• r Y• it •4° �? Ih }Ielltaxrl i _tr" P ar.; iU,• '1� ° °1 � � � ty •j t EY • .•, .�1 �r! c 1" Y a j3.S f • .,.ii i• 1 (y'R� w `Y' *� �, ��+ r•'1 s R � P r v. L�-` 1 • � �. ` ti' � d t y� i �� rt s• ;IyMh i x k' PROPOSED DEVEL0PPA NTS IN This PR©x' CT AREA yg 44 - MILES a y r Following the above Format, (1) A list of projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the agency' A. 14 Mile House B. Parr -Terrill Rezone C Un -named. Isom --Hall. Project D_ Bidwell Heights - E. Butte County Land Use Element 1979. (2) A summary of the expectedenvironmental effects to be produced by those Projects with specific reference to additional information ^s eating' where= that information is available A. 14 Stile douse ERD Log r 81-10-14-03 (Feb. 1982) This project is a clustered development of 21 residences on r.. 186 acre parcel, located 2 miles south of Forest Ranch: The site is adjacent to Highway , 32. The Expodted Environmental Effects of this Project' are (Page 27 EIR) 1. Site could be subjected to earthquake groundshaking 2. Stormd .increase water erosion and run-off wool 3., Two populations of the rare Hidwell'q Krotweed would be threatened 4.. wildlife habitat would be reduced and a reduction in carrying capacity will occur 5 The land' use pattern and:dens'ty on the Project site would change- 6.= The 'visual 'nature of'the site would chnge 1. Demand for public services and electridal energy would increase by ° minor increment, L2" This project,involved the adoption of—the land use element for the Butte County General Plan which included a land use map de:5ignating approximately 1100 acre.^s of foothill prz' pey ales between Chico and Forest Ranch as Rural Residential (later changing the name to Agricultural Residential). The EIR (Page $0 ) ine luded the following discussion - ,"Conflict with, existing land uses;, such as agriculture, livestock grazing, mineral extraction and forest management; higher costs of public services; Increased probability of encountering dable soils; limited coon unstable or highly ero water s'u.pp14tis; high fire hazard and. hiolog scally sensitive areas and historical or archaeological sites." Tire Expected Significant Effects associated w ' ith, development of these foothill areas Page $2r EIR,) includ e: "The continued expansion of rural residential development will result in incremental_ircreases in the cost of pro- vlaing public services, some losses of agrictA tural', range and for, st lands, and,increased energy, expend; tures. .A strong mplementation program can'reduce these Impa(ts-i It not e:_ iminate them (3) A: reasonable analysis of the c'umu'lative impacts of the relevant projects. The foilowing list of effects derive from a cross tabulation of effects common to all (or most projects reviewed 1. Wildlife habitat reduction' 2: Erosion '3, Traffic on Highway 32, with, increased energy demand 4, boss of open space 5, Increased demand for public services' � especia�.l"y fire and police) 6, VJ rehazard 4. Additional discussion of the cumulative effects of development in the DoelMill/Little Cnico Creek Canyon area of Butte 'County can, be found on the .following pages of the Canyon Park EIR: Page Discussion Impact summary, and cumulative significance of all Foothill Developments 14 List of- ,deve'lopments underway or approved when original EIR was written (NOV. 1980) 26 Cumulat.i w xa off ect on fireprotection 27 Cumulative effect on ` ht ---r ff- Department 28 Cumulative effect on energy demand, 31 Analysis of impacts and cumulative significance. 7 Supplement to EIR - Revised April 1382 A map showing the location of the projects addressed in this' discussion is attached. The area shown :focuses on the Little Chico Creek watershed. Land division activity in 8ectibn 36, east of Highway'32 and north of Isom-Hall� 'includes tentative parcel maps on AP 86-05- 36 44, 60, 61 and 656 Th'e Board will be considering an appeal for Ntarino Carbis on one of these parcels on. June 15, 1981. Land division activity'to the east of the Bidwell Heights project includes theS'killin Subdivision (BnvI.ronmental Development Inc,.) to divide 675 acres Into 10 parcels of' 11-173 acres and subsequent divis.ioris or praposals on 4, of those par!ceis. �11,� hfiti�;ation 'Measures for 'Cumulative Impacts for the. Pr2odd, Development Projects In the Vicinity of Canyon Park Estates The m.itig ation measuresi discussed below will require the establishment of formal policies and ;regulations by the Butte County Board of Supervisors to ensure implementation on a uni- form basis. All of the recommended mitigations are feasible, but require that the County enact enabling statutes to 'guide project design and reduce adverse impacts upon the environment The simplest mechanism would be modif-,'*cation of the Count 's Foothill Residential Zone by adding performance standards which would minimize environmental and fiscal impacts: The County must consider development ° of an impact fee schedule which recovers all capital costs related. to new de- velopments and provides funds for long term maintenance and operation of services and facilities. Impact fees can be as- sessed according to the level of service 'provided and the distance of the new project from existing arefs being served. A series of County Service areas could be est 'ablished to pro- vide the services for a fee related to the benr-fits received. 1. Wildlife Canyon Park Estates was designed. to minimize ;impacts 'upon -wildlife by clustering units away from restrictive and essential habitat components-such=au food water, shelter and reproductive areas: Adequate separation of residential units from sensitive areas and the provision of large undivided land areas reduces adverse impacts upon Wildlife. Other developments in the area may not include these design considerations, Recommended 21tigatione Foothill Residential Zone to require adequate separation of e the Butte County should develop a plannin policy or revise residential development from essential habitat areas and _require access corridors between *ater shelter, feeding and breeding areas Sifiilar policies Should also be established for archae ologic and rare or endangered plant sites, ?, Erosion When :Butte County adopted the 1979 Uniform Building Code, regulations for grading on private property were included 1, the code. (Chaptet 70; Sect., 700i et: seA.). Appendix 1.6 of Cafiyon Parr tttates EIR, 81-31. (June 19$2) Recommended Mitigations n Enforcement of these provisions would subject all construc- tion grading to ouunty review and help eliminate some of the less desirable practices which lead to excess erosion. Additional policies can be establishedwhich require standardized soil ;protection practices for all new projects that are ,subject to County review, 3. Traffic Although. the potential increase in traffic volume from knowndevelopment proposals is,signifieant i,t need not create_ adverse impacts since Highway 32 has adequate roadway capacity. Specific intersection improvements, however, may be necessary. Canyon Park has access onto Humboldt Road and the developers will improve the intersection of Humboldt,,and Highway 32 to provide for safe access. The majority of the other unit, proposed for development will use Santos Way for access. Required Mitigation A left turn pocket and,acceleration-deceleration lane must be provided for safe access at the intersection of Santos Way and other access points along Highway 32: 46- Loss of Open Space spacesignificantthere are major, reductioov reductions in widlife habitat: and populations) or in the -potential to meet future planning or food production need's. a Since most of the area has limited potential for economic productioln of food, eg., beef production, because of transpor tation costs and limited soils j, the major problems are reduc- tion in visual quality and wildlife populations, An obvious solution is the clustering of buildings out of view: Clustering also provides for greater expanses of open space, reducing imw' pacts upon Wildlife habitat and wildlife population. Canyon Park estates was designed to reduce visual and wildlife impacts by using only 50 A of the possible 220+ build- ing Bidwell Heights, however isboth a conventional rural supe way. sites on the property, Isom-Hall may develop the same g � �ivxson. with division of the property into lots of 'varying sizes, aiong with some areas proposed for PA-C (Planned Area-Cluster) development. r Recommended Mitigation - The County should establish a requirement for clustered development and use of vegetated buffers for screening as par`4 of a revised Foothill Residential Zone. 5. Increased Demand for public Services (:;poel fi c items for fire protection are covered in No, G) Butte County has continued to provide a combination of rural and urban service levels without regard to Location or distance from existing areas being served. Other counties discontinued or limited many services in more remote areas im- mediately after tie passage of Proposition 1.3. Recommended Mitigation 1, Establishment of Community .Service areas or special districts with assessments made at the time of rezoning or tentative tract approval. Funds are required at this early stage to provide services or equipment at th time the demand =or, service or, equipment is, created: 2;, Addition of building standards that require buildings to be more secure and fireproof: Standard building security ordinances; are already available and are being used in:com-- munities throughout this state. -3. County inspection service fees should be -revised to include mileage andtravel time costs for developments more than 15-25 miles from the County office providing that service, 4. Impact feeschedules should be'developed to provide service levels if requested. The fee would depend upon the level of service requested (a:bove the CouhtytS current capa- bility) and distance from the agency providing servicer 6: Fire Hauard Fire 'hazard increases with development in more heavily vegetated areas and with increased distance from fire stations: Recommended Mitigations Establish a plan to provide additional fire stations, ones ba or upgradeexstinsed on the General Plan land use g designation, IN -- M 2. Th": foilowng should.be required as part of a 'revised Foothill, Residential Zone or speciXic policy on new construction in, foothill areas: N ,, a. Fare fuel l reduction: around new roadsand construction sites. b. Use of non-flammable or fire resistant s'Y.ding and roof materials on new construction., C. Provi ion of an adequate water storage and supply system for fire suppression eg. , hydrants adjacent to homes on subdivisions up to 3-5 acres.' d. A specific mitigation for the Canyon., Park = Doe Mill Ridge area is provision for a fire station, :fire en- gine,,, and volunteer company before an additional 100 douses are built. "q } +� This ordinance is not utilized extensively at present. Applicants for subdivisions in the County have never been required to obtain a permit for road work to date. The Public ''Yorks Department does require the submittal, of road and drainage plans in most cases.. Condition rl, on the tentative list of conditions for approval, reads: "Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public Works for approval and, install the required facilities'". Planning staff has not reviewed the road since a year and one half ago. Clay Castleberry and :John Mendonsa of Pub'Ac {4orks plan to inspect the road on Thursday morning, July 22. If the road, as it presently exists, including any improvements that might have been made, is not adequate to meet Public Works standards it would have to be redesigned and eventually improved to comply.' Since there is possible litigation regarding the access road to this projecty completed road in the vicinity, .and recentl comp 1. . it may be difficult to receivedefinitive information about the -- existing road. Cumulative Impacts The amount of information provided to date on cumul.atiVe impacts 'has been termed. inadequate'by Speakers at the recent public hearings. The level of detail would be more comprehensive had a Specific Plan been prepared for the Doe Mill Ridge area as proposed by County staff In August 1981. However, lacking an overall view of cumulative effects, staff must 'rely on the information at hand abbot those projects 'that are .definitely prrrposPd and merely speculate about what may 'happen on other lands in the vicinity. If the vacant land in the area. is assumed to develop at the maxiinuin density allowed by 'she General Plan and Zoning; an unrealistic �pP 6, end x 15 Cany on Park Pstyates EIRs 81 1 �,7u1y 1982j' kppendix P inter-Departmental Memorandum ro; Stephen A. Streeter,, , Senior Planner FrIOW. ;.lark Radabaugh, .Senior Planner suesEc-,- Analysis of Implications Between 'the Chico Urban Arez, Transporta.:. tion Study (CATS) v.nd State Route 32 Corridor Development DATE". January 28, 198 Attaclied is all Analysis of Implications Between the Chico Urban Area Transportation Study (CATS) and, State Poute 32 Corridor Development. This memorandum is in response to your request for input regarding transportation and circulation planning copcerns that are posed between the Bidwell Heights project on Doe l+lill Ridge (SCl`I #$1102 02) and the CATS,, vinic?z was released by the City of Chico during late NbvembeT, 1932. The CATS is clearly a critical planning, document and will be a component to the Department's current comprehensive revision of the Tran sportatlo., Element to tzze General. Plan. The attached analysis shows that the ,issuas linking; the CATS and proposed developments along the Rt- aZ corridor - Doe k3ill Ridge areA� , i.nvolve lone-range and eurlulative circulation impacts. "`hese cumulative impacts will have the fol.loWinr effects 1, There 14ill be near-term impacts on tlhe CATS traffic demand and financing requirements forecast Wizicir could negatively affect the stied;*'s financi-li `pina i aul:stantial traffic groijth outside of the GATS will affect Chico area road capacities and create a financing i,n.ecluity +.robler hetween the _CATS planning, area atxd those level obi- 2, _ " nents outside t4ze area, bill i"1�'LicI4 1np+"zcC it. SIS 32 corridor grot,t t in Count,* jurisdiction could require greater capacity ex-pansiOn t}yan fore=Ste'd by the CATS. p'inallys+, the attached analysis is also intended to too used as r w a. t)acl.rount � clricut��ent for preparing tiro upcort�.ng revised Transportation T:lerlent. ilk. sli Att achment c, 11.i11 Clleff, Public iiorks To ir� oto Chien Plaijuit�De t Analysis of Implications Between the Chico Urban Area. Transportation p Butte County y Stud (CATS) and State Route 3. Corr* 'or Development in Important Features of the Chico Urban Area Transportation Stud The CATS sots forth to predict future Chico urban area traffic levels teased on anticipated land use patterns within. the ,trban area sphere of influence and then ijentifies street and highway trans- portation improvements that would likely be necessary to accommodate Chico I s growth The CAIS forecast for future travel demand was morseled, for anticipated urban area growth to the year 2000 and for ultimate build-opt. The Chico arca population' in year 2000 and for ultimate build-out was forecasted to be 102,000 and' 171,000, respectively. Most importafttly,, the CATS proposed a financing plan based on its 10 2, cost estUjates for respective year 2000 and ultimate build-out street and, highway improverrie Its needto accommodate addi- tional Chico area gro1•ath. TIle pros".ise of txle plan was "t' at noir a eveloprjent 8-jo ld ear't::e COStL of t}le ijjr, roverje�_jtr, recfttircd tta accclttx..olt t� t' e a d3 tz anal f. tafiNx oellet`ated t)y suc`1 clove lop } an t. y, Two basic firtartci,t,g n ropasr:cl. ,rp�rst assoss�ealt district would bo esta.bli.Shed to finance ir.pruverlet2ts Cratere the local properties would be the primary bellefica.aries o f such im-rov6me7lt:-4. his IMulcx includo S7 tuat ons 721 which almost X11 0� the traffic usin , a road1jay would be going or cortins f, oz ad' acetit p „ district properties It ��as calculated that ts�e assessment f nanc, rl Pectlanism could be used to Punct almost Half of tale 'logy ,1 street and highway improvements which would occur in Chico's 'design- aced g-rowth area:., The second funding mechanism proposed by th,c CATS would provide revenue through developer fees on all new development in the Calico urban area so to finance area wide street and highway im.pro,rem.ents required because of the new development. In both funding proposals; either the assessment or fee mechanism, the rate was proposed to be based on estimated trip generation for each particular new devel- opment. No funding mechanism was proposed for Chico area street maintenance or safety improvements on existing facilities . Implication of the CATS to Butte County _Circulation Planning The financing plan proposed by the CATS is clearlythe easiest and most equitable way to fund neer street and highway development in .±the. Chico urban area. Besides 'uyholding the: basic CATS premise --- that new development pay its Minway, the proposed.financing plan offers, through its developer fee mec; ani8m, both the County of ,butte and City of Chico the opportunity to cooperatively relieve themselves of the direct financial burden of area -wide street and hi,ghwa)) construction and capacity expansion. that will be needed because of new development in the Chico urban area. "Givezt the County and 'City's normal roadway maintenance requirements and the relative Scarcit;4y of existing fulld ng sources, it is unlikely that a signi:, ficant portion of the necessary roadway improvements can be financed from, existing revenues." Such County-City,cooperation would relieve the Chico a rea allocation of existing street and hi latay designated revenues from being considered for neje projects and;all.oW thy. dull ut '1*Zation Of this revenue source far badly needed Chico area street arz highway maintenance land safety J areas As V ne��t circulation develoh"p,mf;nts were added. projects In Ch�Stxg to the. Chico area transpor- tation network, they would their be maintained by existing revenue sources ill the sa me fashion'as the existing circulation system. In conclusion,a successful resolution Of agreement the County of 'Butte and Cit o �, g g nt Uetween City C3zca roardin financin described g plan sur e the 'd.escr by CATS will help to equitablya abl accommodate gatd reason- ably gg s ed new, circulation development in the Chico urban area, and create an opportunity to slightly extend Cit both the County City maintenance and s;afet?r pro ram, for exist, streets by freeing more eXisting road revenue for thi<s purpose in the Chico area. Implication of Bidwell 11e-ihts and Mate Route 32 Corridor - Doe M.1.1 1?i_direa .bevels ment ori the CATS Tare issues linking t]zt-� CATS and proposed de�elo the Mate RouteCltt,. ;y corridor- 00011i11 it' rnear a�t� vent long;-rarce and curiulative circulation fi impacts, irw'tr`e ,. ea;' involve 1utre Counex', t r le existing laazycZ Use hlemezxt and Transportation:l.arei as exit tirtg Ridge areaLonxn�, do not f as 1vell clearly assess those f acts as r provide ader�tiatc y*u. Banco to they may, relate to t;te CATS; The basis for this problem lies in ass ©ssn,� the .ran Te o � pol)ulati' densities that 'could potentially occur anti imPact the Rt, 3`ort : �, acrd, therefore, Planning assumptions Contained in the CATS, caxra Corridor, The CATS year 20oa traffic forecast Projects t hat Eft, �� traffic demand east of tY Ale Chico area will slotitly to an averal;e of 3000 vehicles per day (see Figure 11) In, 1951, an average daily traffic (ALT) of 2,200 was recorded by Caltrans on 3:t. 32 jUst wast of the Forest Ranch area and up'riilJ, from the subject Doe Mill Ridge ar ' g ea: It iso therefore, safe to assume that the CATSea.r 2_000 Y projection for fit. 32 east of Chico reflects very-. slow population Trowth in the Forest Manch area, as well as minor increases in mountain recreational travel. It is clear that C.NTs has riot considered- any su,)stantiai traffic growth from areas bel.ot,r Forest Ranch in its year 2000 forecast. Most of the projected Rt. 32 traffic growth would result from Chico's own growth, 11hen considering the effects of full build-out, again the CMTS does not consider the traffic impacts associated with potential large population growth affecting Rt 32 east of C;(iico. According to the CATS consultant, the full build-out forecast was based on only Chico urban area lanes use and zoning designations that tgould affect traffic demand on kt 32, In the CATS full build-out forecast for Rt, 32, traffic demand is projected to be 52,200 ADT when the oxtreme easte n Portions of Chico's sphere of influence are fully deVeloped (see Figure 15) According to the CATS, aft estimated 15,150 people Will be sa'tuated along this, portion of tie Rt . 32 corridor. This Will require that Rt, 32's capacity be increased by conatructa.n a. 4-lane freeway in theffic flotjs gtootor than oib0O area► Traffic ADT would 'reduce t1le .level, of service ca ac, to a point t+►Iere additional lanes Mould be required on this portion of Ft. s2 (1) (1) Assumes a roadway capacity of level of sere* ce C,, is maintained; 77777 Using the CATS assumptIOPs for future residential densities and their modeled trip generation capabilities,, the projected population of is,18:0 Zaould account fn;- ap-roximately 47,900 ADT of the: 823,200 ADT forecasted for this -Portion of Rt. 32,(2) This. would imply that t the CATS assumed approxi 4,300 ADT on Rt. 3'2 p east of the Chico urban.area at full build -out, or an increase of 1,500 ADT over the ;rear 20on, forecast '(3) again, as vrith the year 200U forecast, most of the projected 3t. 32 traf ac growth east of the Chico urban area mould bd a result of Chico''s own growth. As you known substant:.1al areas of Agricultural -Residential (A -R) lend use designations' are found around Forest Ranch and the Doi Mill Ridge area. Tile A�-R designation allot -is one to forty, g r y. p presents an eXtremel variable and cues er f�ellx�i unit T��Yac,Y uncertain range of potential traffic impacts over the long-term, The tzncertaii .ty of lo?+ ; MW, `+! RAE. paying for the needed road capacities and Improvements.' Such financing inequities are posed by dove lopMoil ts on Doe "Hill Ridge, and nay Kell jeopardize the ability of t}ae County and City to Ileg,otiate a street and highway financing elan, similar to that recommended by tie CATS.' 3. State Route 32 Could Require GreaterCapacity Expansion The cumulative addition of 33,440 ATT to `Rt.. 32 from the estimated , g° J,,920 02,0 acres mentio�`�ed on Doe Mill Ridge would begin to affect the capacity of the highway above Chico if Ridge build -out were to { occur prior to year 2000. If only 500 additional dwelling units outside of the 1,920 acres on Doe �fi1l Midge tjere addedto the, ,Rt. 32 corrirlrr service area (including from the Forest Ranch area) is on :R.t. 32 at the Chico city .limits east of Chico. year 2000 t:raf£ would be approximatelygreeter than tlta.t _ forecasted by CATS. if this same traffic dertiand groWth were applied to the CATS: full build -out' ;forecast;, approximately 68,600 ADT Mould occur on R.t. 32 in t1le eastern portion o;E the Chicoirbatt , 44 p access status At 1�3 Ei0 b"�T� the resent 2 lane controlled of Rt. 3g 11o.ttld be nearing capacity, 1, ith near tern► need for a 4 -lane f eeWay. At 63,600 ADT, a 6 -lane freeloay 1koul.d be, aqu reed, instead.of the 4-14ne free1gay forecasted in the CATS: Civen the present status of the State of Calirc"ia's finances; it is e tre:nely unli rely that the state �4ill firtalice any significant 4�+�.gree of Rt 32 capacity expansion., This assumptio7i is also ' contained its t ;e CATS and localZ funding: oaf state hid hway expansioxl needs in Ghioo are in itt the l:iiia cing plan. U7 M1 1 FINAL III ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT GENERAL 'PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION #84-45 (MOOBERRY - BUPRELL) FOR THE BELL-WIR PROPERTY' SCH 4.84061909 Prepared for: B'u:te County Board of supervisors 25 County, 'Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 August, 1986 m „at F C4 Prepared 6y: EARTK METRICS INCORPORATED 859 Cowan goad Burlingame; CA 94010 (415) 691-1103 TABLE OF CONTENTS . Paae Se ..:.. y PREFACE................. .......... ... 1-1 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................. .............,.....;. 1.1 Location and Character of Project Site ............. _ 1 1 1.2 Project Characteristics ... •••• 1-5 1.3 Intended Use of the EIR ... ••• . 2-1 SUM1�iARY .... ... ...... ... ... .... ..... ... 2. • 1 2.1 Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures ......,... 2-1 2-1 .•. .... 2:2 Alternatives Evaluated_..os•to•be ].ved 2-1 Reso••••-- .4.1........ 2.3 Areas of Controv y G SIGNIrICANT E11VIRON NTAL F 3, ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED TO MINIMIZE THE 3-1 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ... ...,.........:,i............ 3.1 Land Use and Planning, ...•• i .•..•. • .• .......... 3.1-1 3.2-1- 3.2 Traffic and Circulation ........ ..:.. •.•. Hydrology ............ .............:.a...... 3.3 -1 3.3 Geology and 3.x_1 3:4 Public Services and Utilities :...•;,•........ 4. AL;ERNATIVEa TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... ........ :... .. 4-1 4-1 4.1 No Project Alternative .....:........ .......... ...+... -2 4.2 Expanded Project Area: -Alternative ..:.::z:: •••:...•�•• 5. SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 5_1' IF THE PROJECT :IS IMPLEMENTED ....i.i..,..... ......... 6. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE ;PROPOSED ACTION .............. , 6-1 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS •`.'••• $. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAWS ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE ENHANCEMENT OF ..+.� ... 8�1 .:a;,,....AND LONG'T ... ............ ERM PRODUCTIVITY CHANGES.:1lD+IRRETRIEVABL�..i,.i.•. �i' IRREVERSIBLOFE 9-1 COMMITME RESON OURCES ..,.. 10. EFFECTS NOT POUND TO BE S GNIVICANx' ..:...�...� ,..: .,..,,. 10-1 11 LIST OF COMMENTS RECEIVED 'ON THE DRAFT EIR 12: COMMENTS :RECEIVED ON T E DRAFT EIV .:....:...::........a .. 12-1 • +. 13+ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ON THF. bRAFT EIR ...•; •.•••••�'•y•• 13-1 114: REFERENCES: PUBLICATIONS ,1.ND.PERSONa CONSULTED ..::::.:,.• 111-1 15-1 15'. PREPARERS OF' THIS REPORT section Paae 16.. APPENDICES > ..... .....,�, ... 16-1 16.1 Initial Study :.......,..................., ............. 16.1-1 16.2 Letters in Response to Notice of Preparation .....,... 16.2-1 16.3 List of Parcels Involved in the Gene Plan Amendment 16.3-1 16.E A' Applicable Zoning Re ulations ,,••,•ral ppl' ' g 8 16.4-1 16.5 Chico Area Greenline Policy ,, ......4................... 16.5-1 16.6 'Minor 'Revisions to Figure 3.1-1, General Plan Land Use Ha ....., . .. ., ....4..... .,........,... 16.6-1 16,7 Pop ulation Data in Butte County ...................:.... 16.7-1 16.$ Demographic Data in Butte County ...-.... ... ...,.....,... 16.$-1 6.q y Antici aced Reasonably p Future Projects in A 16.10 Methodologies and. Asa=pt ons for Estimating the Costs of Recommended M?itigation...............i— ....... 16.10-1 16 1 i'° . Position ,Statement froco SupervisorDolanonthe rom,' •....�,. ... Nitrate Action Plan � Methodst 16.11-1 16.12-1 16.12' t Finzneing ...... Discussion of Public Improvement r ii i_ LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1.1-1 Regional Setting of the Project Site .. ..... . • ........... g O J -,• -,.iib. • 1,_2, 1.1-2 ; Local Setting of the Project Site.....; ............... 1-3 1.1-3 Location of Parcels Involved in the General Plan Amendment.. 1-u 3.1-11 City and County General Plan Land Use Designations in the Project Vicinity ............ ..:.... :.... .............. 3,1-2 3.1-2 Zoning Designations in the Project Vicinity .................. 301-4', 3.1-3, Location of the Chico Area Greenline ...,;,........ .::.:. 3.1-12 3.2-1 20 Year Cireulation.System Improvement Program 1,980 to 2000.. 3.2-3 3.2-2 Recommended Street System at Full Buildout......•...:...,;:. .. 3. .2-5 3.24 Butte County Circulation Element Diagram... ..... ........ 3,.2-10 3.2.3 Bikeways Planof the Chico General Plan................. ,; .,... 3:2-12 _ ;3.4 1 ies Required in the Facilities Summary o_ Storm Drainage Facilitie g . North Chico Area .:..• ....�. ......... ......... :, 3.4- 3 i .if t LIST OF TABLES Table_ Page 1.2-1 Existing and Projected Development Sf:enati•ios ....`.. 2.1-1 Summary of Projects Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... • ... 2-2 2.1-2 Summary of Approximate Cost for Required and Recommended Mitigation ...., .... ............. 2-16 2.1-3 Summary of Total ;Cost foi Required and Recommended Mitigation ...... .... .:. ,........ ...... 2-17 3.1-1 Agricultural Uses and Yields from the Project Area .......•.• 3.1-2 3,1.2 Projected Buildout Population of the Chico Area Based on. the Chico General Plan Land U66 Map ,....:.....,......,..: 3.1:' 3.2-1 Descriptio" of Lavel of Scrvice for Intersections 3.2-2 Existing Levels of Set --ice At Applicable intersections in North Chico During, the P.M.. Peak Hour Period ..........,:... 3.2-6 , 3.2-3 in�gnProjected Trafiic. VolumesonMa or StreetstheProeetArea' • . 3.2-? 3.2-4 Estimated FUIVUre Pail'y Traff.jc Increases• Associated with., the . Proposed Project ... :. .: y .. y 3.2...1)} 3• '' �- Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes on Major Streets in x th e th Project Area With. and Without the Proposed Project .:..:. 3.2_15 iv, PREFAC). The Butte County Planning Department has determined that an Environmental Impact Report is c luired for the proposed General Plan Amendment related to the tell- uiUnder rrnrQuality o the Purposeof EnvrutuaentalIm act Repot(EIR)isto provide objective information to Public decision makers and the general public regarding potential environmental effects resulting from project implementation. Butte County can then institute; methods of reducing adverse impacts or consider alternatives to the project: This Draft Environmental Impact Report bas been prepared for Butte County in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1916 (CEQA)-as amended, The degree of specificity required in an Environmental Impact Report corresponds to the degree of upecificity involved in the underlying activity, `Phe proposed General Plan Amendment does not nvol,✓e construction Af projects, therefore, the analysis presented in this report islmore general than the analysis which cotild,be required if the project were a specific development proposal CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 states the following regarding the degree of specificity of .an Environmental- Impact Report: (a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in the specific effects of the project, than will be an EIR on the adoption of -effects of construction can be predicted with greater accuracy.+ (b) An EIR on a project, such as the adoption or amendment of a. eomprehenViye zoning ordin�itxee or`- a local General Plan, should focus on the secondary effects expected to follow from the adoption, or amendment, but the EIR need not be as detailed as an EIR 611L the specific construction projects that might follow, The #esources Agehey of California has adopted amendments to the Guidelines for'Environmental Impact Reports, which incorporate the recent changes in CEQA. The EIR guidelines allow the preparation .of an EIR which addresses only significant project effects., Butte County Planning Department identified a number of areas in which the project could have significant effects on the environment, including land use, planning: traffic, soils; deainegei economics, puhlic services and utilities (see Appendix 131.1jInitial Study) A166 includeri in the amended guidelines (Section 15126(c)) is the prot+ision that, tithe disbussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the taeasures that are proposed by project proponents to be included in the projeot aad other measures which are not included, but could be reasonably expected to reduce adverse impacts^. Aedbeditigly, all Mitigation: measut,es recommended within (this W. are not preselttly irialuded in the project unless otherwise specifically notedi tihere apjlropriate, this EIR inebrpbrates by reference; documents that are readily available to the 9drit"al publ.x.cf in accordance with Section 15156 of the -Guidelines. This Environirenta,l Iqs act Report (EI)) _ p' � evaluates the ,.impacts rsfi:onverttnR Butte CbUnty'10 Ge„4"rat Plan Land Use Map designation for the tell-Muir Property from egricu tural (ohe duelling unit per five acr,6j MakimUm Density) v �� (One dwelling unit per acre, mum Density) uses. o to low density.':res ,denial. mitigation measures to reduce significant effects. and proposes ecific land development proposal consistent with the future Study an s However, Y P land use designation of the project site a °tgla � speoif:Lc ElRacouldtbel al P . determines that a proposed development might create. to determine potential e.nv-- Ines required if the county acts that would not he mitigated by the measures adverse imp to identify most, if not all, .significant identified in this report. This,ETR will servo id consistent with the new General Plan , the impacts created by projects the related mitigation measures required to reduce des designation and provides also insignificant tmore adetailed EIR if impacts to alldebe approvedswithout�another development Proposal not present unmitigated the county deCermiries that the proposal would significant impacts- �I vi I . PKIECT DE SCRIPTTON I'll L nraTroN aun rSARACTEE _OF_PROJECT SITE The properties involved in the proposed General Plan Amendment are located in unincorporated Butte County, adjacent to the western side'.of the City of Chico, California. The affected area involves approximately 270 acres of the 400 acres within the area bounded by Bell. Road, Muir Avenue, Alamo.Avenue, Henshaw Avenue;, East Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. The regional and local setting of the project area are presented in Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2, respectively. The project area and affected parcels are 'identified in Figure 1.1-3. The affected parcels are listed in Appendix 13.3 by Assessor's Parcel. Number and acreage. project- area is:currentl used for - -- The j y residential and agricultural purpoees. Portions of the project area have been 'subdivided into one acre parcels for residential uses, which is inconsistent with the existing General Plan Land Use and zoning requirements in the area. However, the majority of the project area is developed with walnut orchards and other agricultural uses on larger parcels. 9.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS pro osed amendment to the Butte Ca The p project is an linty General. Plan Land Use Map, and, a revision to the Chico Arfw:Greenline. The amendment Would change the county is land use designation from "Agriculture: Orchard and Field Crops" (five acre minimum parcel, size) to "Urban: Agricultural Residential" (orae acre minimum parcel -size). The amendment is an administrative action and would not involve construction.. The proposed,lfrban:,_Agriculltural Residential land -u-" designation will enco+arage private property owners to subdivide existing 'parcels for residentihl development. Approximately 30 residential, units currently exist in the project area. ,The existing land use designation would allow for the construction of an .additional 20 units, for a total of 50 tial units with buildoutofthe area: residential .. The proposed General Plan Amendment would allow for the eonstrudtion 'of a maximum of 270 new residential units, for a total of 300 residential units; with ,build'but of the area .(see ..Table 1 .2-01'i Devej,'6pment of 'additional urbaa uses in the project area would require relooation of the City of .ChicolCounty of Butte Greenline) which is known as the ','hico.- Area Greenline. The. relocation :at the Greenling would; be considered rop project a prita;�ry'"�drt of the proposed, ro'ect because the existing Grt.enline defines the l.m(ts of future urban development and provides long term J�roteetion of agridUIU tal. resources in the Chico Area of Butte County. The project area lies withlb an area defined as the Chico Area Greenline '"Study Area Number 1" (See,;Sectich :.1, band Use, Planning, Appiicable Plans and Policies). Howeldr; t 6 Greenling revision would not 'be the same as the line defining Study Area Number 1 The new Greenl.ine Mould follow the boundaries of the parcels.affected by the General Plan Amendment (bee Figure 1.1-3).4 trr ' ,:FX.;tiS('�ft i'ry µ, s• � .Ip ":' 4^C n•: rM �r aSI r K' n f f1Y '� t r q� t'rr �-"t�r`[Y! �LI�. •lrN nr.,, v lc. r r^,1 r IY••.Y}j~t{Lc y Ka tr i ,,. t ,� ,+ '7 tti c-1•I.tr� s!i): v v 2 tp �/t/:L�9�Y: J`N''fi G .ayl��1 �,y �.r •'.'fi:' `l•tt 4i''s'b �S rk1•t ' .�.,�' tr a.•' �r rl lir 'l7rt;�,:i \ yr .w• tTi' !I iA4 } fl n. IIr ✓ Nr) l4 ; }� +•ti`1 tdt: !�_.+lr�. ;t'Cr wGr v2r>t�n, \ a r•. L.5 Art at i) i f - ri,.ww �1f L H tjt/��} n, �"•�'7,7k FFAVSi +,i.�l�,'t�dlj�`-''7; t� ;� r sil ii')rrt�; !F� �J� •mfr ' -_.pct J='%`�+�'L�i�, .V. �•..a� ,s=7'� �.- lr��:'tIil.Atls't:I, ta. + S1. iyy�•s���.17'`'�j�7! :J 3 int 1yv �%•��� LS{*1.%ttn.YE� KS :n:;. 't' ;4S'tr,�1' F' ' Y'CH S L�C'. •*Y•r r � ��r� "+ �c i. +t' J.'i:'��. j / �«^'" w `lit r:.y �.}IJS'�i '}a•'a S!Yi1✓ _ .}ir,,/,e ?�r,..�i<t�y`L,��1�..-. � �y � -'S � r ,, :� •a )�i•r �>rr i:.:;?�7r'_: / :)?jfr►i wok "'J '. ' r1.)I'���" 'i art , f:^'1[• ; c f:Nz�'t )�!':.'1'V« i -f7 h \1 Y`t. ' rr 1'`t^ .h.'lh"•, y r.'t�.!t. / i • nFt i �`f Y {as .. rr _ �+;i r r r i fir• a C i t i✓ Yi?!r yy "� he�•`G.. c�n� Its J✓ = i 1 S :..ter. • • �� `!i2.:1 •k PH. 6. S ti r� 's..a Z.. car•r�. .t t' Jri � lrl _`. lrY�. ,-7t �w^'stit „� '�" �' n�ytr.t�+ i>�w." "j � nl�i, rib\r' iS•�i � `A t n I `Sx•,f��� ti. �;n� ��t�i^vim f `, "---.,,n. .ei fr >z;.ti�;,•4•c , r4 �•r'' c:.t`�t c � ' .t 'T r c �. ,. Na , M;'rt'i'y•-.i .r r f I/f! .�a;'.� ' a . '!E ^•!"^f' ! � ' ?CM }` r L4S t`^ 1 a LT.7• . "��� _.- tV4M �'�'vr7i•,1f - Q 'ry ti-'1:'�:'.'!L'`• ;� ♦ C • V r.. ♦ 7 •. n 1 90.i - �"i4' : r•u 1� 5 .rf f fr,. .4— :ii ��r• iS�'7,`,��) L a�i•..''..i'1; •• i• •ti• S^7 r• 'i f4• v�,in:1�- -' ` Ci . v[ �i r 31� `� J' . �"�+ 't;r .it;tF;�y 'Y4� �,�L,Prt:1%'?�C s IA:. P�S',.s `"4�G�{•'.!V F " •L3t }i 't'i'K'atL''�2Ja c' i\ ti Ji�'?. r r � �• ' '�.. 41)`~ aYi J '! •' < J �^ w�� 1•^ .S.�I. \� � K1t a � ,r.•I,y^ r ' !7rr.�. •iv�X •(C 'p .'•A4: .`.44k r�� r'��f — � Ir��r rii .t, tier-��ta �j lE%t'!ts ��:n ��c: �7 yi'WrJ r . i Jy . v it "�.,�. r� a�:;�,y����4 . r��ix llasaS Z .� f )a.�� 1, ,et v ',r,7,t .S��a!',t!{.�L 1�: ilS-�a "�dT3.',• ' �` ':'^'. ,� tij.T.���. \d' ,� as [�!'��w`�� .-� � .i�i�ev. • ii ����'r , �f i� ' �t•�lr (t 'r ' lj '{;�„ �• j�' '\err �,, ., >. J�: ; rlfl •.- r-�f f..c.K i;A *r l.:.,•• {'r• -t',!' �t Ir�[� ti --I { r V ��� 4{:J Itrt W'l ;.: 4A_rs(_iryy^s'\�� •)•`t`"• r C , �•'jt �.�, )�y ( 11?'ii 11� Aj t 't a,OF GtiP"A l Jnr AREA _ rrrr ALTZRNATTVF. AREA IG r URE 1 , 1-3 IOCATIQN OP "PARCELS IN110LVEU IN GENERAL PLAN. At'SENDFtENT' SCALE isa th f11f�t[' C� fir` aCd i� �n , +hEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS TABLE: 1.2-1: EXISTING AND PROJECTED ApPRO7MA�'E__ D_�'i:1PMENT FUTURE F'ti VRE EXISTING(A) w PROJECT(b) 910 PROJECT(b) AREA Parcels subject to General Plan Amendment, 270 acre area defined 35 300 50 in Figure 1.1-3 Alternative Area defined 113 440 150 in Figurel..1-3 (a)-_ Based on air photo reconnaissance, da revised by to of photo 1984,. building record's check, 1986 (b)Assumes maximum feasible density andten percent nonconforming 'parcels (worst case assumption) Source: Earth Metritis Incorporated, 1986, Tuttle, 1986. New development a1loioable under �heofeausewernts of the trunk l nepfrom the roposed Gcity aofPlan xtensi n Amendment tanks. The decision to connect into the may require antic to the city sewer Chico to the project area to minimize the addition of more � system oretofrot neW al16W peptic tanks will be made after completion of .a—severagc ''�� '�`` �o system o m study now °being; prepared., If the report indicates a sewer connection is ;;�,'�� required,. the City of Chico would require that areas served: by the sealer Bine either annex to the city or sign an agreement to allow annexation at a later date. The environmental impacts of a seller donnection project and an annexation project are not the subject of this EnVjronmenta Impact Reports and would 'require te'paratd environmental review before approval'{see Section ologyApplicable Plans and Policiesition.3.3, Geology , Se 3.1i Land Use, Planning, and Hydr, and Sect files)-. . ion 3.4> Public Services and Utilit NTET bED�JSE OF THE EIA This. EIR dill be used for environmental review of the requiast for tne:adrproposed posed reilizieditob General Ulan Amendmrixt and revis nto the Chit3gationAreaico0measures•for fUture f the EIR may be used :o identify P 9ubdiyisions, proposals including utility extensions, tentative parcel m�36 rezonings and/or construction projects. The Local Agency ;Formation Commission (LA 'CO) inay use the EIR if an1lexhUon or district formation Prois cess $IR 'in its decision making p related to Butte County will Eye` using this ess the pr.Posed project. 2 SUMMARY' 2 p)i4TT3P MITIGATION MEASURES o a ires. The investigation conducted for c c,fTmn a n ga I. this report included an examination of the environmental impacts. The major The significance of each project .impacts are summarized in Table 2.1-1. impact is noted along with the required or recommended mitigation measures. The significance of each impact with and without mitigations also noted. are used in Table 2.1-1: beneficial impact; The following impact categories (NS) significant 'impact; (PS) potentially or possibly significant impact not (an impart Which cannot be precisely assessed at this time) and (S) ignifi-.:ant adverse impact. Mttlgptist Table 2:'1-2 summarizes the approximate cost of requi"red and reeommended.mitigation measures for the proposed.,project and 16.10 presents the methodologies ,Expanded' Project Area'Alternative. Appendix • utilized for estimatng,the costs of recommended were -.and assumptions which, mitigation. The costs reflect 1966'dollars and conditions. Itaeh Costis be Some mitigation based; on the assumption that buildout -Would not staggered. the Expanded Project Area Alternative apply to the proposed. requirements for project despite the lower overall density. In this case, ,the"improved Logic identified ;is and stability of the Expanded Project Area Alternative is the project. All costs are.worst case estimates based on , .compared to proposed .comp ineers. Field checking by a officials and with public eii,g consultations professional engineer Would bP required to, refine cost estimates for and water systems when more specifii: development 3nfrastru cture, such as serer Cosi: est ies for ustrueture and public services plans are proposed. 11 should be"expected to change inLhe future as a response to, inflation and such Costs associate" dareelsinouldube addeddto tboseht, tlateral divdual` costs- _ �. asawater sewerng to P ident,fied',in Table 2,1-.2. re , The fixed and annual costs for requir�.d and recommended mitigation",- a' fourVdeyelopment scenarios (two for the proposed e in Table 2.1-3,for .present d and two .for the Expand Project Area Alternative). 6 p(irtiori of the project fixed fees Mould be:returnedias.,Cal 'Plater purchases the,775,000 water system develo menta connect to the water, sewer, and st crm and at existing and future p drainage sysbem improvements: , Methods for ,equitable disteibution of'costs should be defined by tutteCounty the gill (refer to Appendix 1h.12�. The timing of future projects in area "variations, With respect to trai'fb improvewents, create cost particularly WhicY, are based on a pro rata share of trips through an int�ersect:un or along in 1966, y: cost ,analysis reflects development conditions roadway The,.. achaxiisms can be_ used i'or instate ation of improveannts:' Three timing m � �` improvements and collect fees to,reeapture costs When development 1) install occurs; 2)' install"improVements'and require,paymphts.immed atell►; and 3) Some i.na'tidn covtb collect money and install improvements with .available money. 'easiblE. The improveineiits Who cbntributionsed of these methodo].ojgies is also Director of Public Works for Butte County. as required by the could be made based on area (acreagb) lineal feet of frontages i1kber of rooms in a dwelling unit or contribution to im pact (traffic, sewage). 2-1 1 Potential financing mechanisms may includethe use of assessment'districts� r I redevelopment, federal and state finding, or direct contributions from developer and/or property owners. County staff is familiar with the �I e%stablishme t n p'rocedtzres 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 fin enc ng irIvididual projects. Typically, assessment districts are most tiseful `when pr�.')j " "'costs are relatively limited, - so as no t to adversely burden property ow,4rs in the Inclusion of the project area within .a Redevelopment Area Would allow the use of tax increment financing for.area improvements. 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 c ficperiod of years. The feasibility of.'redevelopment would depend on spe? a ability bake specific findings regarding area blight, the necessity "development, and the economic feasibility of the redevelopment funds to finanoe needed improvements. Several state and federal sources exist for possible assistance in financing project area improvement, including Urban Development Action Grants (UDAG),, U-S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Assistance,, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), gasoline tax funds Federal Aid ° Urban (.1EAU)Funds, and Economic Development Administration (EDA) grants. Butte County and the City of Chico are currently participating in some of these programs. Due to both the competition and current reductions in the availbility of such funding, the project area should not rely on a significant share of funding for these programs: The County -could' also 'seely ,direct, contributions of landand fund `from developers and property owners to. assist in financing project area improvements that benefit their developments and, properties: The extent Of developer and p property owner participation is uncertain and, probably limited, however, since costs incurred would be passed on future residents through increased purchase pric6si High development costs could jeopardize the feasibility and competitiveness of the aee0 s residential development Specific bdhtribUtionpp xtbUhtswouuld be subject to negotiations between Butte Count and the develo ers be property owners. The defining of an eouit&� a distribution of costs between on site and oft s p y ty site benefactors is the res ohsibilit" of Butte Coun 2.2 AiTERNpTiVHS. EVALUATED The No Project Alternative and the Ekpanded Project Area Alternative are evaluated in Section u of this report. Under the No Project Alternative, most of the of im aots of the proposed project would be avoided or substantially p reduced. Howev , the No Project Alternatide may not be a long term alterna- tive due to certain existing and planned growth inducing activities which will affect residential demand in the p"rojeet area. The gxpanded Project Area Alternative would involve a larger area and ,additional 'parcels allowing devel- opment of 330 new residences (60 more residences than would be allowed tender the proposed project). This alternative would incrementally increase the significance of most impacts- However, this alternative would be considered more logical and stable than the oondition presented by the proposed proje^i 2-2 2 3 AREAS OF CONTROVEM-WISSUES TO BE RESOLVED The Butte County Planning Department has identified land use and planning, circulationk water quality, geology, hydrology and public services as areets of controversy and potentially significant. environmen,f�l impacts to be addressed in this EIS (see ,Appendix 16.1): Public .concern in response to the provided rovided in this Draft ETR will be addressed in the Final EIR. The p^iruary issues to be resolved involve interpretation of the Greenline Policy as it relates. to "Special 'Study Area Number 1" and precisely defining' costs for recommended and requirei mitigation. r, 1