Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 7 OF 21has not yet reached its planned capacity of 1,693 students, Future schools Are planned in the Chico area and one school is being considered in the. Project area, but land has not yet been purchased (Mathews, 1986). Other schools that serve the Chico area and Butte County are Butte Community College and California State University, .Chaco. Road Ma'n enanc Butte County maintains tine roads in the project area. Thea are e the jconsf.deredradequatento time ettievnare meet, fexistwideningaed upgrading, but at this Thecto g1 maintain roads built within a subdivision if thenroadsaare builte--Jl3d. standards. County countyountyl road maintenance is funded by ,the gasoline tax (Edell, 1986); r Lib Th the rChico.areaeT.he recen3ty tlyconstructed y at East1st Avenue -in Chico serves all of d Butte County Library is housed in a building designed to accommodate expected local housing growth past the 2000. Funds to year support the library come mainly from the Butte County General Fund. 4ervices such as the library have been adverselyaffected by recent budget cuts. (;urgently,o the library is underst operating hours 'reduced from past years (Terry-, 1986). understaffed xi .h Hna i l a. ., --= tom Two hospitals currently serve the Chico area. Enloe Hospital, a Privately operated nonprofit facility located at 5th Avenue and Esplanade, is within five miles of the project area. Enloe Hospital hasappr beds and is used close to capacity (estimatat 90 ed oximately 220 The second hospital )owned aChieo1986j. serving the Chico area is the Privately "Community Hospital, also located s within flue miles of the protect area. Thi: h4stimatedaata60roximatel $5 beds and ,eurrent� �s not used Mo capacity Ce y percent or lower) (Calarco 1,586 Parks and R nra }inn, City maintained Bidwell Park serves the City of Chico and its unincorporated areas. Bidwell Park covers ;over 2,!}OO acres and extends from California_State University, Chico in the center of the city, past Bidwell Mansion, and on for ten miles to the east into the foothills. Bi•,dwell River Park is west of Chico along the Sacramento River and consists of 180 acres of unimproved state owned and maintained land (Greater Chico Chamber.of Commerce, 1986) Chico Area ReoreatiOn and Park District (CARD] Operates located southeast of downrk town a'the near State Route 99 an.d 20thcStreettand Chapman .Center located at 16th and A Streets. All 4 elementary ehools have been designated as recreation areas. The East Side ,Little League Park is located Southgate, at off State Ratite 99. 111. recreation areas are heavily used at this time (Hughes, 1986). Butte county is currently writing a Natural Resources and Recreation Element to be added to its General. Plan, A discussion of Park dedication requirements and in lieu fees will be 'presented in the document (Brown, 1966). Ste. The proposed project would increase the d errand for public services and utilities, This increased,demand would be d awkward and i7,logical pattern of pat�oels involvedfin ethe trossRd due to the 6o partioP P _ Prdject, iilarly with re"sped to water, sewer and storm drainage facilities. The following discubbions describe the impacts of the projeit on the Public services Aho utility availability,- provision of r� 3.4-6' • 1 Water Suppj. t.elopm ent allowed under the proposed project would require up to 86,400 gallons of water per day, assuming 270 additional dwelling,units and a demand o1' 320 gallons per day per unit (Earth Metrics Incorporated, 1986) The California Water Services Company (CWISC) anticipates no difficulty in providing wager for this additional growth in the project area. However, the expansion of water ;service would .require the ,drilling of one additional well. Water from the additional well would continue to meet the standards of the Nitrate Action Plan (Grant, 1986). Residentsofthe project area may choose to drill their own wells, which would reduce the demand for water services from the CWSC (Grant, 1986). However, a complete water system for fire protection would be required for site development (see Fire Protection).` Sewer Service. An ;estimated 77,760 gallons per day of sewa& would be generated from the 270 new residences allowed by the proposed project (90 percent of projected water, use). The Butte County Health Department has indicated that sewage disposal could be`accommodated by septic tan�cleaehfield systems (see Section .3 Geology/Hydrology, Water Qutlity). However, av the nitrate problems evolves and, further�density 'inareases are proposed in the northernportion of the Chico, Urban Area, connection to the Cityfs regional sewer, system may, be, necessary 'to reduce areawide water'quaity degradation.. A package treatment facility is not; a practical alternativwe'in the area due to land area requirements, regulatory constraints and costs (Reid, 1986). A future connection of the project site to the Chico Water Pollution Control f Plant would involve a costly, new extension of a trunk line: from I om the Chico Water 1iCtrol Plant to and throughout the project area, and fees for P ionofthetrreatment plant, The new trunk line would be expected to accommodate a much larger- area than the _project area because it ishighly unlikely that -the -proposed -project o --by itself, would justify such an extension. A representative'prop'osal for sewer system extension to the project areae is identified in the F'easibiljty � for Sanitary Sewer Serviee to h- Norlas ica Area, 1984 prepared by Rolls, Anderson, Rolls (see Figure 3.4-1). storm Drainaap. New residential development in the project area would increase impervious,surPace area from buildings and roadways, which would result in a corresponding increase in stormwater runoff (see Sectiori'8.3, Ge ology/Hydrology for a discussion of drainage impacts) Police Services. The proposed project would add to the demand for Butte County She'riffts Department services and Mould require staff or vehicles to be added to the department (0.65 deputies based on the standard of one deputy per be a total of on). 0 per" year ted costs for this addition of seevii+es would 1,000 population). Ther yeara�rwey 1986'). Increases in staff and vehicles (Grey,, cumulative impacts ene"rated.b future rojects (Gre wi1986), , required due to cuaiulat q p g Y p � F pr6fQaton. The proposed`project would increase the demand for fire protection services in the project area., The !Adk of fire hydrants in the project area reduces the firefighting capabilities of the Butte County Fire Department. Butte County 'tire 'Department would require the installation of an areawide pressurized water systep consistent with County standards. knew p proje d could be fire station (oto. 3) is lanhed for a sate near the et area an completed in two to three years if starF,ed immediately. Thii, station would need to be fully staffedto accommodate the increased demand for fire protection services. Sn:addition, Company 42 would need expansion in the interim. The number of additional volunteers needed to protect the project, area would be five to ten individuals. Cumulative development in the Chico area also could require increases in staff and equipment in the future (Hawkins, 1986; Tiller, 1986). sobnals. The proposed project could generate 0.43 students (grades K-12) per dwelling unit; resulting .in an increase of 116 students (63 elementary, 27 junior high, 26 senior high) (Mathews,=1986). Neal Dow Elementary School, which would sery-c the project area, is currently at 84 percent of its capacity and is expected to reach: capacity in the next year.. Bidwell Junior High School is presently at 71 percent of its planned capacity and it is anticipated that the school can meet the projected groi4th. Chico ,Senior High School, currently 16, Usedto68 percent of.. Its -planned-capacity and is expected - to be able to aeeommodat e the additional: residential growth in its enrollment area. The increased number Of students generated by th.e proposed project, therefore, is likely to significantly affect Neal Dow School, but is not likely to significantly affec.t. Bidwell Junior High School or Chico High School, (Mathews, 1986). 'The proposed project Mould have a cumulative impAnt on schools in Chico and its.unincorporated areas. %As discussed under Existing Letting, the school district anticipates the use of 60 relocatables to accommodate the future growth within the next five years. The district 3s also examining tae Potential for °new schools to accommodate growth'.(Mathews, 1986); Road Maintenance and HOsgiGal:Services. Development allowed under the proposed, project would incrementally increase the demand for road maintenance and hospital services. 'These impacts would 'not be considered in or cumulatively significant due to the relatively low increase in service demand expected by these services (Edell, Calarco, 1986): Librnrtpq: Developiment allowed under the proposed 'project would increments` ly increase the demand for library services Which are :already operating below adequate service levels (understoeked, understaffed, reduced operating hours). This incremental impact is cumulatively significant, Formation of a special funding source to support the library system eoulid be considered double takation because the library system is supposed to be free, according to the State, Attorney General (Terry, 19$6). Therefore; this impact is, only mitigable through budget decisions made by Butte County: Parks and Recreatloa. Development under the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for parks and recreation services. iAlthough' the :project related incremental impact wocild not be considered significant, the dUmul'Abiv_e increases in demand for parks and recreation would be considered si n g 'ificant and would add to the need for new recreation facilities. Future progeAmb associated with -the. Quimby Act or related funding mechanisms may mitigate impacts of development in future if they , / 1 years are` approved.At this time; the cumulative impacts ort parks, and recreation � facilities are unmitigable: 3.4-8 , M. 1�T �ATTo�i M , -� The following measures ars recommenced to mitigate the. P P s identified in this section. adverse ublic service impacts �; Nater Sera, �� A minimum of one new well :and a required in the Pressurized water system gall be Project area as a result of site development. Nater requirements shall be met. The regUir6d" well All Cal and water system will cost approximately $775;000. Wa�etat.,atr�r TrP=*men Septic tank systems shouldbe installed in the project area, system should meet the standards and requirements Eae Plan and the of the Nitrate Action County Health DePdrtment ® If septic tcihkscanh6t meet the standards, And requireme �! And County HealthDepartment in the nfutu etha te� Action Ply line should be .extended to the project areA`f , .trunk �. ra from Chico Water Pollution Control Plant, The 'cost for air,ch- an extension and for service to the project area (including a treatment: plant 'expansion fee) would be approximately the d 90,500. An assessment district should be established _ to compensate the applicants for providing sewer_eapacty to Parcels in, the projestvicinty. See Section 3.30 Geology/Hyd"dogy. Pice- - Butte develop should consider cumulative demands for police services and future ate funding mechanism such as at Assessment district feasibility of ;rhiA mit a e standards in the future: to (The ffmaintain future 1eve1 of servicsure.Ys 8 tion mea Y , y questiopabllb because recent , denied b voters. ors y the count to raise revenues for this Purpose have been. Butte County should require developers of the project area the 4neremental impact ($28Proposed G j600 per year;) on police seto pay for rtr ces created by the eneral Plan Amendment. Fire Prete ioti Sati,-;.,00 Butte County will aoll Fire Station 60b 75 dollars per new parcel in the West Chic Benefit Area to a;equire funds to build a new fire static to serve ''the project At" on 0r:,:. Butte County should seek additional volunteers to staff Station 42 Station 43 is operational. until A nform to the water system should be installed in the project area to ervice to the Hutte County `ire Depaetment requirements ('see plater Services for costs): 3.4-g i Hydrants should be placed in appropriate standards defined on page 52 ofo county the ButtelCounty�"ImprovementS according tStandards for Subdivisions, Parcel Maps, and Site Improve Chapter 20 of the Butte County Code". ments, Pursuant to Schoo Project area developers should be required to place a notation on. Final Naps when filed stating that the issuance of residential building permits, mobiile home installations, or hook u Permits for residential dwelling units is subject to the payment cf; eho l fees pursuant to Butte County Ordinance Number 2 63 and Beso �taio fees Pcurrent fee structure will;amount,to $168 g The with five to six rooms each (see A :75Jrf 270 dwelling units ppendix 16 However, the current fee structure does not provide sufficient revenue and may be .increased y October, 1986. The _school district bas- stated that -the"proposed increase in,fees would mitigate project related impacts. Zn addition, the school district is interested in negotiating yith the project apF?icants for land dedication for a new elementary school site in lieu of the fixed fee ('Hensley, 19.86)., ` Pants and R 1+ ^inn Butte County should adopt a funding program ecrie tin facilities as part of the Naturai Resourcs and RecreationrElement6of the County General ,flan. Road Maintenan e Butte County should implement the Circulation Element Policy to develop Ar system of off site development fees and/or development agreements for' road construction and maintenance, to allow project area roadways to be widened and upgraded as future development occurs (see-$ection 32, Trafic and Greulation), The annual road maintenance fee for the ;Project would be $7,621T, 4 , 3. -10' 4. ALTERNATIVES Two alternatives to the proposed project are considered in the following analysis: the No Project Alternative and the Expanded Project Area Alternative.: The following discussion compares the impacts of these two alternatives with the proposed project impacts discussed in Section 3 of this report. X1.'1 NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative involves maintaining the project site's existing General Plan Land future developmentUse (lessdZoning than 0 residen es)sy a limited amount of could be added in the project Area as a result of this alternative. No variation of the Chico AreaGreenline would occur. Under this alternative, ' most 'of the env romental impacts of the p^opose i project would not occur, would be substantially reduced, or would be delayed. The No Project Alternative may not be a long, term alternative because the project area is defined as a "study area" in 'relation to the Chico Area Greenline. This designation indicates that this area is more likely to be involved in an amendment to the Greenline than other areas. Many other 'growth. inducing impacts, such as the Eaton Road Extension, development along State Route 32 and increasing urban density in western Chico, may encourage a future amendment to the Chico Area Greenline and the General Plan Land Use designations for this area. The follcMing discussion summarizes impacts of the No Project Alternative by issue. LAND USE, PLANNING, APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES. The 'N'o Project Alternative would maintain existing urban/Agrieultural land Use conflictsinthe project aveajL but would not Increase these -.conflicts or subject -new or larger parcels, bsyond the project area to the west, to adverse land use eondtians. The demand for residential land for development would be shifted to properties currently within the Chico Area Greenline, which is consistent with city and county planning policies. The growth inducing impact of the General Plan Amendment and relocation of the Chico Area Greenline would be., avoided Beneficial housing supply impacts would be lost , "FIC Additional traffic would be generated by only about 20 .residential units rather than the 210 allowed bn4er the proposed project. This traffic. Protect area: t- the' roadway system in the would not be expected, significantly affec p gn� Y . GEOLOGY%HYDROLOGY. Potential'' soil and seismic impacts would be minimized with the, No Project Alternative. Stbrmwatee'runoff and infiltration and urban pollutant levels wdUld be less than with, the proposed project, -Storm drainage infrastructure vould not Lbe, needed to accommodate projected runoff. PUELIC 5ER'VICES/UTILxTnS Impacts related to additional demand for public services from new residentst would be minimized. Water, demand would, not eequitie� a,11n, 64` well nor a".:oresstirized Mater system. the feasibility of and need for a sewer extension into the project area would be reduced. The incremental demand for polJ-de and fire services would be insignificant., Impacts on the school 4istkdb,# -road maintenance, Libraries, parks and.recreation facilities wbuld be 'reduced to Insignificant ]revels. 4.1 4.2 _ _. EXPANDED PROJECT AREA T .RNATTV The Expanded Project Area Alternative would involve a General Plan Amendment including all of the parcels within the 400 acre area delineated in Figure 1,1-3,. This alternative also would provide for one acre minimum parcal sizes, allowing approximately 330 new residences in the: area (60 more residences than, under the proposed project). Under this alternative, the significance of most of the environmental impacts identified for the proposed project would be increased as a result of the 60 additional residences allowed by this alternative (beyond the 210 new residences allowed by the proposed project. The following discussion clarifies the differences between the impacts of the proposed project and this alternative. in summary tht Expanded Project. Area Alternative would generate slightly greater incremental and cumulative impacts than -the proposed project, And would be more logical and cost effective due to the uniform development density. Table 2.1-2 summarizes the approximate cost for the required and recommended mitigation for the expanded project area alternative. LAND NG, APPLICABLE PLANS S. The Expanded Project Area Alternative would' allow for improved internal land use compatibility between - urban and agricultural uses by allowing the removal of agvieulturai as the predominant use of the .project area. The pattern of .land use designations would be consider -AW more logical and stable than under the -:proposed project. However) the expandeddevelopment potential would further disrupt the cityls and county's intention to guide development to other areas in Chico and away from 'prime agricultural lands. Beneficial housing, supply impacts would be increased with the potential for additional units. TRAFFIC AND Cip= ATION. The increased development potential of the Expended Project Area. -Alternative would increase the; sign ficance of the incremental impact of traps generated by the proposed project. The total uumber,of daily and peak. hour. trips generated would be 3;300 and 330, respectively. Measures to mitigate impacts and related funding for realigning unconventiohal intersections Would become more important and urgent. :GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGY, Soils and seismic impacts would not be substantially different with a higher number of units at an equivalent density (one Unit/acrid). As compared to the proposed project,, this alternative would add more 'impervious surfaces (increasing runoff), and would contribute more urban pollutants to local waters. However, - these impacts would not be substantially different than those associated with..the proposed project. PUBLIC SERVICES AND.UTILITIES. The 60 additional residential units (330 total units) allowable..undee the.Expanded Project Area Alternative would increase the demand ,for publicservi'es_in the project area by 22 percent over the proposed project. ,However,: the, provision of public,aervices would be more logical with this alternative due to the uniform development density.. skater Use and wastewater generation would increase. Water demand would be approximately 105,600 gallons per clay :and would increase the probability that a second bell would be needed on .the site. Wasterwater volumes would be epproximatel 95 040 allons pee d However; wastewater could still be y r g p a3' treated b se tic tankl'leachfield s s to ms V p y A etotal of, approximately 142 . expected '" hich would students:would ,be expe w add to existing and projected capacity inadequacies: The demand for police services, fire protection services, parks 4-2 �i; .a 5'- STruTrT�AUT,E_ NViR�t P_ROsLECT TS rHp FMNTED T A OIDED IF THE' Section 3 of this EIR identifies the environmental effects of the Project. Table 21-1 proposed summarizes these impacts and clarifies the significance of each impact with and without implementation of the recommended Mitigation measures. In many eases, the recommended mitigation measures g incorporated into can be the project to minimize impacts to insignificant levels. The followin8 project related cumulative impacts ma y not be reduced t insignificant levels after mitigation: o - The proposed project would encourage the deve opme pp 270 new dwelling units in an development,of a roxiLoss oral land. Loss area of rime 37 this agricultural land would represent a 0.375 o total amount of county _land used for fruit and nuts roent decrease in the e. incremental loss and Other uctio pbedeonsidered t incremental, losses ,would si� ifieant cumulative impact at the regional a' state and national level.The - Proposed Projectwould increase the demand for police services. Even though the 08,600 fee i impact, would mitigate the projectis incremental y .the Count Sheriffs department serve the County. Hould still -be understaffed to The capacity of He Dow School would be exceeded with the addition the students expected to be of generated by development in the area: The existing fee 'system is inadequate to mitigate projecteCt impacts. If the revised fee structure is approved, this impact would be Mitigated (Hensley, 1986). The project would increase the -.demand for library services in Butte County. Formation of a special funding 'source to support li the library system could be considered double taxation because the library system is supposed to be free'aceording to the State Attorney General (Terry, 1986). Butte County m�,tst-provide appropriate mitigate this impact. library funding to - The project would inorease'the demand for parks and recreation, facilities. Butte County must impact. adopt a funding program to mitigate this The following project related impacts, would: not be re , reduced level's after mitigation, p to insignificant Development in the and ebuntyts intentojencourageect, area Wdevelopmeould hot oistent faith the cityis nt innbe Chico Urban Area: thea locations in the - The amendment of the Chico Area' Greenline would foster and "remove would nopul a Constraint on growth in the project vicinity, ation growth �; 5- i w 6. GROWTH INDU It]G ZMPACTS According to the California Environmental Quality Act, ,a project is considered to be growth inducing if the project could directly or indirectly foster economic growth or population growth. Extensions of urban services or transportation facilities into previously unserved or underserved areas, and other projects which remove obstacles to growth or generate substantial e4onomic or employment activity would be considered growth inducing. The proposed project would indirectly foster economic growth and population growth in the Chico area in oeveral ways: (3) by increasing density to allow up to 270 new residences to be developed in the project area; (2) by amending the Chico Area Greenline to ,remove a constraint to land development in -prime agricultural areas; (3) by reducing the city's and county's commitment to encouraging development in other areas of the city; (4) by encouraging the City of Chico to extend urban services into a previously unserved area; and i p ym business activity with (installation. dofginfrastructurenand uconstruction of new residences. Increased development density would be growth inducing since it would allow additional people to live in the Chico Urban Area: The people would -incrementally increase the demand for consumer goods and services which would encourage secondary growth,, such as new businesses. gQdifiGation of the Greenline could be an indicator haat .the existing constraints on development created by the Greenline and, efforts to direct development in other areas are not firm city/county commitments, which would encourage owners of ,similarly property g P ure on decision makers to amend the situatedto enerate pressure Greenline.. Extension of urban services through infrastructure improvements and extensions of urban service boundaries (annexation) is clearly growth inftoiing since similarly situated properties would become more viable for urban usesi imited to Impacts on the construction industry would be temporaryand likely 1' �+ businesses and workers.already established in the Chico area. The growth induoing impacts of the project would be considered significant a 6-t 7. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts are impacts which are individually or incrementally minor, but which, when combined with impacts associated with past and present approved projects and other reasonable anticipated future projects, accumulate to mori4 substantial proportions. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed when they are significant and that the discussions shall describe the severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA also states that the discussion does not need to provide as great detail as is provided for the project alone. The discussion is to be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness. The Draft EIRdiscusses cum:lativG impacts by utilizing the Chico Area Transportation study (CATS) which is an adopted planning document pertaining to future development of the Chico Urban Area 'and _by analysis of the project as a percent of total growth both in the project vicinity and general area: rThe basis frdeve whichtheare made aro two scenarios which b(CATS)yprojections 2000 and development- by buildout of the Chico General Plan .Land Use Map. The CATS study is incorporated by reference in Section 3.2 of this report. The analysis Iof cumulative impacts as a percent of projected growth is presented as follows. The proposed General Plan Amendment and subsequent development of residential' uses in the project area could result in the development of up to 270 j additional dwelling units and approximately 648 persons living in�the project area (2.4 -persons per dwelling-unit). The addition of 648 persons to the project area (Traffic Zone 30 in the CATS) would exceed the population projected in the CATS for this area by approximately 31 percent for the year 2050 and would represent a six fold increase in the number of people added in this zone by, the year 2000 (64$ vs. 106). The proposed project would represent aprcoximately 47 peraettt of the total number of. dwelling units Aad approximately 15 percent of the projected number, of'Vehicie trips which are reasonably antiei'pated in the, project arca (see Appendix 16.9). The total Project related population grcwth would represent approximately 0.86 percent Of the lowest projected total population growth anticipated with buildout of the Chico General Plan Land Use; Map. The share" cumulatiVe traffic, project's of air quality; noise, and public services demand impacts would be proportional .`to its increase in population growth. The project°s incremental population.growth is expected to occur, gradually in the future Mitijation measures For the significant cumulative impadts are presented in Section! 3. OtOA states that mitigation measures for cumulative impacts may involve ,only adoption of 'ordinances or regulations rather than the impositions of conditions 'on a project by project basis The follows cumulative Impacts are discussed. in Section' 3 of the braft EIR n8 p Loss of prime agricultural land to urban development and additional' i'nver'se land' use compatibility impacts. . 7=1` Changes in planned land uses and the relatedweakening of the city's land use planning policy which encourages development in other areas of Chico (growth inducement). Additional traffic and related impacts such As noise and°air quality degradation in the nortn'Chico area. - Increases in urban pollutant levels and nitrates in soils and water in the north Chico area, f- Increases in the demand for public services, including sewage treatment, water, police, firej schools, .road maintenance, parks, reerea tion facilities, libraries and hospitals: Table 7-1 presents a quantitative summary of the cumulative impacts of the approved (but not occupied), proposed, and pending development projects identified in o system, the cumulative impacts of these projects are not and io trait portatn e Appendix 16.9)• Due to the regional nature,of the housing expected to be; limited to the. Chico urban area. 7'AB1E 7-1_. QUAtiTITATIVE SUMMARY OP''CU14ULATIVE 'IMPACTS �. APPROVED, PROPOSED, PROPOSEDAND PENDING, IMPACTS PROJECT PROJECTS(a) TOTAL Housing Units Created 270 305 575 Students Generated (a) 116 131 247 Daily Trip Ends (b) 2,700 17:537 200237 Peak Hour Trip Ends (c) 270 1,75u 2,024 Water Demand (d) 86,400 91i,60o 184,000 gals%day Wastewater Generated (e) 779760 87,840 165,600 gals/day (a) 0.48 students per dwelling unit. (b) Ten trips per dwelling unit per day (c) Ten percent of ori daily trip ends. (d) 3"d gallons per day per Unit (e) 288 gallons 'per day per unit. Source;' Earth Nletries Tneorporatedo186. 7-2 �. 8. RELATIONSHIP—BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY The relationship between local short term uses of man's environment and the V maintenance and enhancement of long termproductivity is often one of �. tradeoffs or balancing social, economic, and environmental impacts over time. In some cases, a relatively short term benefit may have adverse cumulative effects, with the possibility that future generations and the future economy" may be burdened with unwarranted social andi environmental costs (see Section 7, Cumulative Impacts), The opposite situation, in 'which long term benefits occur at the expense of shovt term dislocations, also is possible. Decisions that influence the balancing of such impacts for this project are the responsibility of Butte County as part of its policy mating and regulatory function. The proposed project's short term adverse impacts Mould result from construction allowable after thepr oposedGeneral Plan Amendm nt. However, long term, adverse impacts would include (1) loss of prime agriculture lands which would involve a reduction of the total overall capability for agricultural production in Butte County and could have An adverse ibpact on agricultural support services in the rizgion, and (2) inefficient use of public, resources to serve low density development on the west side of the Chico Urban Area. At the expense of the attractiveness anand/ormarketability of development City of the east side, as is encouraged by Butte County and the Cit of Chiec (see Section 3.1, Land Use, Planning, Applicable Plans and Policies). Rw1 r 10. EFFECTS_HOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT Based on the Initial Study prepared by Butte County, discussions with the cducted dixring preparation of the EIR, some planningstaff, ff and. analysisra3 issues were found to be nod: significant and, therefore, Wart. environmental " issues include .the determined not to require indepth analysis. These following: BIOLOGY. The project site is located in a disturbed habitat. No significant native plant o;ranimal habitats are Down to be supported on site. NATURA. RE80URCES. The proposed project would not result in a substantial a substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources or , depletion of any-nonrenewabl, resource. ENERGY. The proposed project would not consume extraordinary amounts of energy. AIR QUALITY- The project is not expected to generate a significant amount of not be significantly affected air pollutants. Existing pollutantlevels by the t d ! by the increase in ail' po HUMAN i�ALTH. No significant health hazards exist or'xould be created in the project area. �� No significant scenic Vistas or Views would be 'affeeted by the Cpr�ojeet, the project would not result proposedThe development under proposed in aesthetically offensive views. CULTURAL RESOURCES. No cultural resources are known or, are expected to exiat ,it the project area, Ncis ; The additional- traffic genera*ru by dolvelopf'tent allowable after the levels at General Plan Amendment would not significantly erect,'toise seAoitive receptors along adjaeelt, roadways: i� LIST OF COMMENTS ON THE MAUL= The to persons: and agencies made comments on the Draft EIR during the in chronological order with Public the Review period. The comments are presented most recent comments fiv,st. However, the minutes of the Public Hearing are presented last. . A. Ghanian, John B., ChiefDeputy Director, State Office of Planning and Research, May 23,0 B. OtBryant, Dennis J., Environmental Program Coordinator, State Department of Conservation, Office of the Director, May, 19, 1986. C. Cussick Area Neighborhood Council, May 16, 1986. D. Loudon, Jeffrey M., Cht,ef, Environmental Branch, Department of '� Transportation, May 9,: 1986. unified School E. Thompson, Robin G., Business Manager/ Gamptroller, Chiea District, ,May 2i 1986. F. Department of Public Warks, Butte County, ,April 8, 1986. G. Hughes, Jerry,general Manager, Chico Area Recreation and Park District, _ April 3, 1986. H. Tuttle, Laura, Associate Planner, Butte County Planning Department, Tune 27, 1986. 11-1 r THE Ksoums. APENCY OF CALIFOONh;. B O'Bryant, Bennis j.. Environmental Program Coordinator, State Department. of Conservation, Office of the Director; May 19, 1986. Ali emoraindum rrdon F. Snow Dote : MAY 19 1986 To : Dr. Go Assistant Secretary for Resources Subject; Draft Environmental Ms, Laura Tuttle Impact Report, Bell- county of. 'Butte` Muir GPA n84-4$, 7 County Center Drive SCH 84061909 Oroville, CA 95965 Ficin Depottment of Conservation--O ice of the. Director The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland conversion on a statew'idc basis. The Department also administers the Calif'o'rnia Land Conservation (\\'iiliamson) Act, We have revic,wed Butte Country's Draft, Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project refer- cnccd aboNte and have noted that the proposal would involve the comlcrsion of prime agricultural land, The Department, t'herefo're, offers the fol- !owing comments. The proposal would involve approximately 400 acres of agricultural land ° currcnt,l;, outside the Chico Greenline (urban development �� hIch > boandarV), Itproposes the: extension of the grecnlioe to include' the project arca within the current development area, and the conversion of j a,prro imatcly 270 acres of land to 270 ]-acre h:omesitcs. It is not , clear frc�m the DE1R what additional agricultural land conversion mare result as a sccc+ndary impact of the project, The DE1R, notes (page 3.1-3)-- that there are _a nu.,mber of economic _factors chick affect the viabi ity of agricultural, operations in .the project arca. B.2 Nve question the emphasis on the negative economics of agricuitura'1 operations in the absence of more quantitative and qualitative detail on t:hc cconomics of current agricultural production, Also, we concur with raur comment (page 3.1-10) which` suggests that ihe. project would magnify �.3 and transfer problems related to nuisance to adjacent agricultural lands. 6,4 We recommend that the Final 'Environmental Impac Report (FEIR)' address the Iof long-term farmland conversion impact by including the following inf6rrn4tion+ a The agricultural character of the area covercd 'by the project and of nearby or surrounding I`ands which may be affected by the conversion process Types and relative yields of crops grown. ` Availability and quality of ,irrigation water. o Rarrrtland Coni"crsion Impacts The type and 5— bunt of 'farmland conversion, if any", that would res-ult in ttcarby� areas from implcmenta"tion of the pioject; ins eluding potential crop yields that would be lost, The proportion of the CountY 's to,ea`1 �t" 0 c oTt 'a�` this con, version mould rcprescnt; C1 ll.►"'►=ll"%'i:� �1ur} 124 Cussick Area Nei.ghborhood_&ounci 7 }" Mai+ 1 Ai,; 1 URh Co. C MAY 19 1996 May 16 , 1986. Orov�, Cbufolvu To: Butte County Planning Depart menC Att'n: Ms. Laura Tuttle From:, Cussick Area Neighborhood Council Subject: Questions and Comment Re: Bell-Muir Environmental Impact Report. " The Council i leased to have the o ortunit} , s p pp to transmit Its reactions to the draft EIR whose conclusions would have definite impacts on our primary area of concern. tIR Page Number Commetit C.L 2-5 We strongly concur with the mitigation pro- posed for narrow, sub-standard roads. C.2 2-6 We agree with mitigation measures proposed with respect to the western extension of Eaton Road,. Vie suggest that access to the proposed extension from the south should be limited to, one,point, e.'g., Rodeo or duynn to provide ser- for the subject area but not sub- vice accessa regional traffic service. 2-8) weagree strongly with the, proposed miti- gation measures for storm water run off, septic 2-9) tank;usE and for a planned sewage Line eaten- .Sion into areas where future densities mandate such facdi:li_ti.es . C.4 2-10 :We concur with mitigation measures proposed for fire protection. Commentary regarding school facilities ex- C.5 pansion is inAdequate as it provides policy making bodies no guidance and ignores the purpose of this EIR. .6 2-11 We concur with the proposed roads policy, •�j 212 We agree strongly with mitigation treasures proposed -far library funding. A strong, adequate- ly funded library system is essential for edu- cation of future generations as well as edutati©n and cultural enrichment of ;the 'present adult population in the Chico area. Comments it the draft regarding recreation- a! facilities need to be expanded to directly "speak to such needs in the larger area west of the esplanade and north of Linda Channel. It is . omotesuch fatilities onivlhay 3. htroerlbelocatedw thin the study area; g P yl should therefore be planned f6t 11-6 1 -2 - EIR Page Number, - Comment c . 9 3.2-4 We strongly disagree with the`5uggestion' that in order Corelieve future traffic press- ures on East Avenue, Lassen Avenue,should 'ie widt-ned west of the Esplanade and extender., to S.R. 32. Introduction of through traffic into Oe study area would defeat the objective of ).its, density, suburban residential development. Historically, heavy traffic volumes on thorough tares generate demands for permitting higher -.densities along_.stich.ar_terie.s.. We � Le_I!eve future traffic needs can be met by making the Eaton. ■' Road ex.te.nsion a. restricted access 'facility; and by appropriate traffic contrls :and channel•- ization on the Esplanade at the Eaton Avenue r and Lassen Avenue intersections. �.i0 ^{ '_ I 0 � 6' Why has the intersection of East Avenue and the. Esplanade been omitted? The intersection is already one of the most congested in the region, and future development of major commer- cial uses westerly of the existing development C.11 wi .i on1' exacerbate y present poor levels of service. Detailed analyses and traffic engineer- ' ing studies should be made as these may set C.12 growth restraints on other parts of northwest Chico. The inadequate right-of-way for East' Avenue east of the Esplanade and limits on the ammint of service level improvement acheivable through soph sticeted traffic engineering are constraints which this EIR must: properly address, r r a 12 ... ....... .... _.__._ _ ,fit M. Chief Environmental Bra nchi Department of Transportation, .7effxe'y : "— rtay 9. 198b. Dustues T?ansportation & Housing Agency State. 'oT"Laliz ornia MEM0RAN'AUM To State Cle7ringhaase Date: May 9, 1986 Office of Planning and Research Attention Parp-la Milligan File: 03-But-32/99 1400 Tenth Street P.M. 6.3 Sacramamton CA 95814 Bell-Muir GPA SCH No. 84051909 From: DEPARTI-ENT OF TR.01SPORTATION Telephone ATSS 457,4498 District 31 .P 0. Box 911, Marysville, CA 95901 t Caltrans, District 3, has reviewed the draft E R for the Bell-Muir General Plan 4';,iandment and revision of the Chico Area Gre671ine. Tne site lies between Bell Road and Highway 32. No specific development plans are proposed at this titre. D.1 Fir,_-c re "A.2-2 shox 8 two neva interchanges on Highway 99, one at Lassen hvsnue and one at East 5th Avenue, a5 recom:,�ended irr;provErzants for Pull 'ouih3-o�.�t These is not uffcient room between existing InIC.erchanees g at_location G r oallow p ruction of additional interc- nes. These i lrovem-ntsarenoL � physically possible. D,2 The M references the District's Route Concept Report'16r Highway 82 by st8ting that the report rec.)raiends v,-i enin `rligh� ay 32 to three lanes in, this vicinity. The Route Con-ept Report actually recommends widening to four lanes with bicycle lanes and .left turn po.kets. This project is at the bottom of the District's top ten priorities for construction between 1990 and 1995. .• ' Page 3.2-17 states that 'tappropriate funding will be acquired from FHS A rnnd Caltrans..: ". D.3 Given current funding, shortfalls, this is nota realistic solution: s ro ects Funding may become available for those high priority p J identified in the System mtnagerrp-nt, Plan, such as the V4ide-hing of Highway 32. However, other roadway improvements relied upon in the EIR are not scheduled for State and/or Federal funding in they foreseeable future. Ve recomriend the County in coo ,radon with the • city of Chico,, consider a method to finance long-range measures necessary to mitigate cu rulati:ve impactsi ops Attn Laura Tuttle 7 County Center Drive Orovil ,e, CA, 95965, S E -Muir Property UBJ�CT• Draft E.I.R: for the Bell Dear 'Ms. Tuttle, E.1The referenced development is located within the area served by Neal Dow Elementary School,; Bidwell Junior High School and `Chico Senior High School. Based on the averacje number of students ;per residential unit, it is projected that this development would result in 62.69 elementr 'ry students, 26.79 junior high students and 26.7 senior high students. Please be advised, as per Government Code Section 65973, the schools in the District are already overcrowded; however, Butte County Orainance No. 2463 was enacted to enable the District to meet elementary housing needs and those needs should be adequately met 8,2.during the; 1985-86 school year. It is anticipated that the junior and f seitior facilities), toaccommodate projected"enrollment increases during the schools. in the District will be able 'in, ex�stin E.3,upcoming year; The school overcrowding is substantiated by comparing the District's enrollment and increased numbers of students to '.be generated by proposed residential devlopmento the Distxi c � s school capacity data. School Enrollment-Capacity Comparison, School Total School. Enrollment Capacities Plus Projected Enrollment Grade Level (Students) From Proposed Developments Difference. ICindergarten ly0261,493 (467) 1-6 4,476 7,469; f2,9�33) 1-3 21388 ,68Q (1,292) 10-12 2,702 3,635 (933) 12�-1q w' F. Department oF,Public Works, Butte County, April 8,.1986. BuM ;Ca. Planting C•mm APR Inter Memorandum � �� - -Departmental TO Laura Tuttle -Planning. Department FROMip De artntent of Public Works sueJECT: Bell -Muir Draft ETR OAT Et April 8, 1986 This Department has reviewed the subject E. T . R. and offers the follot�ing comment F.1 1. Since this area borders the Chico Urban Area relative to requirements for curbs,,gutters, and sidewalks we feel that this area should ba annexed to this existing Chico Urban Area F.2 2. Mages 2-5' & 2-11, Road ,Standards RS -3A & SRS -1 should be changed to read RS -2 for public roads - and applicable standards for private roads. cC: Supervisor Dolan 1�-1z G: Hughes. Jerry: General Manager, Ghic� District. Anril 3 1986. &CO Asea .(:_,vRenea1t0t1 and �a ��f � • C A !� p �$<« r 545 VALLOMBRO5A'AVENUE CHICO CALIFOAN'.A 959216 TELEPHONE (915) &,r•p Co. PlcrM4 Gam, t APR 7 1986 orovu;e, C,au jwvja April 31p 1986 To: Laura'Tuttle, Butte County Planning Commi sign From: ' Jerry Flughes, General Manage Subject: Bell�.muir EIR The Chico Area Recreation and Park District has reviewed the Bell••MUft EIR and 'staresthe following: page 7_U G:1 The District su or s the stated mlt-i. anon measure as we have pP g consistently with respect toresidential development within the boundaries of the Chico Area Recreation and Park District (CARD). G•z We do object to the designation (non-significant). District bo more residential units are developer] within the undaries, the impact not only on Didwell Park but G•5 other park and recreation' fac,iliti,es is signif ieant. We eneouragcc the County ;to move toward adopting the, Natural Resources,and;' Recreation Element for the county General Plan to than the "In - 1, ieu" fee can be established. Paae G•4 Thes6cparagraph refers to the Community Park that is under, .o i CARD s i Further ,reference in the paragraph is made to Cha Chapman Neighborhood Center yr jch is alsti a CARD facility. adm2392;.'mil !' Associate Planner, Bute County, June 27, 1986. H Tuttle, Laura, r_. Count,LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY -� PLANNING COMMISSION ,7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROViLLE, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 June 27, 1986 PHONE- 53.1.4601 , r' 1 Brian Kennedy Earth Metrics, 859 Cowan Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Brian; This letter is intended to summarize comments made by the Planning Commission, June; 25, 1986, on the Bell-Muir Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Because of the nature of their comments, a response should be prepared for their Ahgtxst 13, 1986 meeting as provided for in Section A,.lb of the contract. The comments generated by the Notice of Preparation and be an addendum se tat this time: These Clearinghouse should be addressed he DEIR because of the responses will P ze printing costs. As we short time line'and to minim ' agreed, when the final EIR is prepared; this addendum and all other responses to comments will be incorporated into the body of the document Since the staff designated in your response to the County's 1 p RPP on this project has not yet been utilized, their exp_ ertise should be employed in preparing the responses to comments in their particular field. Specifically in the area of drainage, we are looking forward to reviewing the to�pro-pare proposalg had indicated they work of Barrett_i4arr s. Your would be retained lan4 a drainage P Specific comments made by the Commission and that need to be addressed are listed below: 1. Determine all j,nfrastructure necessary to support l e development. Page 2.3 of the contract lStatet il aoiscuss public services of development and general e�tpected associated 'costs including sewers0 storm drains, water supplyr roadways, fire ani police protection, and-other utilities ,and seg; vices". rii1 8%ibmission of,:a drainage 'plan should answer many of the Comnis"sions concerns about dra-mage. Quantitative data on 'sewer improvements should be submitted,. r- r12-44 Brian Kennedy Page Two June 21 1986- For example,necessar In the event that the Brown :and Caldwell plan is not implemented, how will sewage and drainage be accomodated? H.3 Itis suggested that all infrastructure improvements be conveniently listed in a table. -HA- 2. Determine the cost,of-infrastructure. The. contract (page 2.3) indicates Earth -Metrics will provide cost estimates. H..5 It is acknowledged that there is a lizvel of 'uncertainty in development plans and construction costs. Therefore;, differing scenarios and cost ranges can be given., For example, 'cost of participating in a community wide sewer system, or neighborhood sewage treatment system (package plant).. - H.6 Ifseptic systems are permitted, a typical system cost per dwelling is accep-table, H.7 specific development Imyout and circumstances will determine on site infrastructure costs. Representative costs per linear foot for sewage, water and drainage lines, etc. should be given. H.8 Off-site improvements should:be pro -rated on an acreage basis and based on benefit. H.9 'Residents should be assessed a fair share of the costs based on te.-jsesor new roflthis1aro'ectsshould fic csolely Improvementsfneeded. because Improvements p 3 be entire! funded .b neighborhood Y Y g boyhood residents. AI7 costs should be listed in a table. 3. How will im rovements be financed? ' RAO This analysis is 'provided for in the contract (2-3). A brief' discussion of different types of districts; powers and establishment procedures is acceptable. An alternative mechanism it ,the "pay as you go" method with the provision F. a facilities. mar reimbursement for oversz The a p.en,ded to include �. lternatives sections should be ex morspecific a.nformatzon 'on impacts resulting from e. RAI development of the entire 400 acres. S ' Brian Kennedy Page Three a- June, 27, 1986 pleas:indicate if additional mitigation measures 'would e sectionshould not require be required. Expanding this more than 2 pages - ages.H.12 H. 12 A noprojectalternative should be explored. 5, mitigation Measures should be more specific and not i.e. p actions being taken. dependent °n. other y y .not the Brown, Caldwell may or may N.13 p tation of m lenient possibility shC-31,d be addressed.- occur, That 6. City of Chico should be contacted about including Bell - they are not H.14' if in their ,sphere of influence. If to c connection community ameniable to a sphere phe a cha.ge� sewer mai not b 7. Expand cumulative impact section to address effect or, with other developments in H.1 this project when combined the VicinityJ ii.16 The planning Comm ssioulatommeve is redly, focurev'isinns should infrastructure and cum focus on these issues -`as well: to' use t'ou`r initiative in suggesting mitigation H.l Feel free Fee measures and development standards. or As you know, the Planning Comm scion has.reSeven ecopies ofd this the motion for theirg August ve no be na J,ater than August 9r 1986.. addendum shoheir received Please let me know 11'If you can meet this �meline. Sincerely, haura Tuttle Associate Planner LT:jmc 13. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS. ;ON THE DRAFT EIR The following responses address the commentsP resented in Section 1 2' of this report. The reponses which required revisions to the text of the Draft EIR refer to the appropriate portions of the text where the revision(s) have occurred. DIRECTOR,STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND` A.._ OH ANIpN. JOHN B. , CHIEF DEPUTY_ RESEARCH, MAY 8, 1986 A,1 Standard Final 'EIR Procedures. : The comments are noted. - II BRYANT, DENNIS J.. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COORDINATOR, STATE DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION, _OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR,. MAY 19, 1985 B.1 SecondaryAgricultural Land Conversion. See Section 3.1 Land Use, �.a.bie Pians and. :Policies Land U g► PP , Use Compatibility 'Impacts. Planning, Applicable B.2, . antitatve and Qualitative Data on Agricultural Economics. The qualitative statements onPa8 o 3.1-1 of the Draft EIR identify positive and negative conditions which affect the economics of agricultural uses in the project area. The negatiVe conditions are not emphasized, but are identified to illustrate the applicant's perspective; Quantitative data, including acres in production :and yields, have been added to the discussion of Agricultural Character of the Project. Area and Vicinity in Section 3.1 of the EIR. (See also the response to Comment B.4.) Nuisances and Adjacent Mricul'tural Lands-: The concurrence is noted. B u Information to Describe Long Term Farmland Conversion Impact. Each of the points raised by this comment have been discussed in Section 3.1 of the ETR. Refer to the following parts of Section 3.1: Agri cul turai Character of the Project Area and. vicinity, Lot , if Agricultural Land, and Land Use Compatibility.' Mitigation Measures foor Agricultural Land Conversion.The comment rent re- , q.5 nests that three new E miti atioh measures be added to the The es are as follows'r 1Conversion of non farmland to new farmland of equivalent quality and quantity elsewhere in the area: �I 2 Protection of other, 6kisting farmland through the use of Williamson Act contracts. 3_, Use of setbacks, buffers, and right -to -farm ordinances to offset nuisance impacts of urban uses on neighboring Agricultural operations, and vice Versa The 'first and second measures are the coordinated responsibility of the City of dhicof Butte County, and private landowners, but cannot be implemented by the ,developer as conditions of approval for the proposed project: The third measure has been added to Section 3.1 of the ETR. 13-'1 1 SSICK AREA -NEIGHBORHOOD Wu 'MAY MAY 16 1 1C. M i ti anon for Nor_ �? Substandard Roads. The concurrence is noted• engineering and pl.anrii i, of the Eaton Road Extension and Access from the i�ro�ect rea. I C.� Mita a'tion for Eaton Road public Works The concurrence is noted. The eng of C,�tco and Butte County The recommendation for one access p south for ].Deal Extension are functions of the City � Dint to the Departments. ice is noted: I Planned. sere �- C. :Hifi anon .for Stormwater R no edW� tic Tank User and for a ecwade Line. Th currence is ,on foroFir . Brotect on. � e cone• r. ence >is no ed. u .Hifi a'_ ---- e 'Chico. Ad uae of School Facilities E aE�R°n Theirscomments sic h. �are preseutedein C.S. eo y, School Di tract nas reviewed the Draft I Seet:on 121 Comment E. C.6 :_pro osed .Roads .Polio;,. The concurrence is noted. , Mit ation for Libraries. The concurrence is no Led. C L • "est of the E planado. and Nca�tYi of C.8 Recreation. Fa1i cies in Lamer -Area. The lack of recreation fac litieiforhsiteraequisition�and I Lindo Channel. on a means to collect fees is working ent of Pa G from the Chico s Butte County land in this area ent. Ac sition and development Comment rlt not likely without a titin source rtmen funding. facility develop IArea parks and= -Recreation �?a,., on osed in the n o t ssen Avenl�ecten°n, The Lassen Avenue is iaota required mitigation. Chico Urban Area Transportation Study (CATS) sed density of the develoFnent measur- for�the propossen Avenat• The prepo .event the con - prof ue would not .necessarily p GO ntemplate along proposed 'n Aveh Extension; but the limitedfundingavailable struction df tha Lassen ublic costs for the extension prohi- I ert could make the P from such deut1aPmsity increases. Future improvarients to the CATS analysis bitive without. Tions'and land use density Shang a the (constraints assume es) sk�ould refine (con I feasibility and need for the Lassen Avenue Extension. s�rviGn The level of L` 'vel of Service at East/Es 1anade Ir by the (qty of Chico or Butte of Esplanade and East has not been calculated Uy t linty: Based on observations the level of sorvice; at this location is TOS or LOS D (see Table 3.2 1)` Es' lanade Ihber6ddtion-.and Growth I r of the Chico Urban Area Traf fie Avenue/ D Traffic Studies for Easy, The purpos he rec�xired ,improvements necessary Stud and futn Northwest Chico identify Constraints i y lire am6ndmeni:s is to :th OW in the Chico Vrban. Areas Tile impact of the I alter the existing level to accommodate projected gr' project' on this intersection would not significantly y of service after recommended mitigation. ons East AVenue,'Easf t, 16, The 00.12 Ri t of tea. Constra3 rovement is not req y a 'result of comment is noted. This amp aired direetl as 1 I . the proposed project, but is, proposed as part of the CATS. Future improve- , y change ments ,o the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions,land, .use densiti c will refine the feasibilityand need for this improvement. Q: LOUbON4 JEFFREY M CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL BRA2i17H, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MAY 9. 1986, ' D 1 Feasibility of State Route 99 Interchanges with Lassen Avenue and East 5th Avenue,. The 'comment is noted. Neither of these improvements are required directly ase result of the proposed project, but are proposed as part of the CATS. Future improvements to the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions, land. use density changes) will refine the feasibility and need for these interchanges. ' Q,2 District Route Concept Report for State. Route 32.The comment is noted. The projects by itself'; would not require_th.e improvements identified in the District Route Concept Report for State Route 32 '(see Sectiol 1.2). M Financing to ThegDraftong EIRRstateseth that "Measure identiaU[ fied in the Buttev Impacts. n County i Circulation Element should be implemented, as necessary, to acquire appropriate, funding from developers, FHWA and from CALTRANS for appropriate traffic mitigation measures identified in the CATS and in the Draft EIR. Further detail regarding funding of the recommended improvements is provided in responses to Comment's (see Appendix 16.10'), E. THOMPSON, ROBIN G. BUSINESS MAN AGER✓COMPTPLLLER..'CH!CO UNIFIED SCHOOL' DISTRICT, _MAY2, 1986, E.1 Student Generation and Overcrowdi'tiR. The comment is coia5t�tent with the statements made in the Draft SIR. The comment is noted. F CapaeitV Versus 1986 1987 Enrollmi nt at Junior. and Senior High Schools. The comment is noted: E.1 Substantiation of Okeroraadinsti The comment is noted. E:4 _Capacit; _of Neal_.Dow School.. The comment is r��^�d',ed. Ti e Draft tIR states that this impact is significant even after mitigation, ' E.5 Capacity of Bidwell Junior HJ�,-h_Sdhool The comment is noted; E.6 Capacity of Chico Sema-• iiiSchool. The comment is noted. Fa The District, Position eta Project.- The regilest is; noted. is r E,8 Butte County Ordi'nanee Na 240 anis Resolution No: 85-40• The request noted. 3-`3' DEP RT IT OF PUBLIC k�ORKS BUTTE `COUNT`l APRIL 8 1 86 tion is not, proposed by e r Chico Urban Area: The recommendation for annexation of t Annexation to area into the Chico Urban Area is noted. This annexa the requirements Of the Californiaa% ni the applicants and has not been evor in this document ..n terms ocific Agency Formation Commission concernsProject Description). al Quality Act (see Section 1.c Proj Specific d public services and utilities is provided in Env ironment data regarding the provision of p Section 3.41lic Services. Pub The ,comment is :noted.:. See the mitigation measures in ,2 Road Stanar ddu. Section 3.2 of the E. HUGHES .JERRY (NERAL MANAGER CHICO- AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT . ep�tt� Conc"urrenee with Mi ti ation The comment is noted. " recreation: e ' ficance of .Park -.and Recreation Imcrets• The Draft EIR states th .2 Si im cts to pa and r following regarding : pa parks sed project would k�arks and Recreate• Developmentunder the proposed increase the demand park and recreation services. incrementally i mand for,pa impacts would riot be considered Although the e he3ccutmt�a ledihetdase in demand for parks and recreation, signi.fica ' ificant and would add to the need for in lieu fees wruld be considered sign _ _ ects: r new pro3 Po ndeed "In Lieu Fee" progam and development - General:_Plan e sta ThEI a so e Natural Resourcesaand hRec ncremn Element etrto anCi ignif sant level: of ect' s i ental imps would mitigatee the prof arks and recreation could also be mitigated "th Cumulativee impacts Ori pa asure. The comme implementation..of the recommended me ea►ent, nt is notedi i l �•- natural Resources -and Recreation E G;l CARD Facilities. The comment is noted; UNTY JUNE .2 PLANNER BUTTE 007,.1 8fi H: E LAURA ASSOCIATE PL TUT uirements for drainage are identified �' u na a lam;: 5pecifiG requirements the ESR: See also Appe Section 3.3 f :Geology arc Hydrology f five Data for 'Serer lin rovgar nts Specific "requirements for H 2 anb3 to edti'da 3. , rvicea and Public Se wastewater disPOSBAI Are calsadAppendi� 16.10• Utilities, in the EIR. able 2 •1=2 and Appendix '16:10 ra e Last of Infrastructure, lM ncs. See T See Table 21-2 and Appe O. ndix 16.1 H.0 Cost Estimates: 13-� �1 =T Uncertainty and Use of Aiffe^3n Scenarios and Cost nail-1 The comment l i- Section under ummary is noted. uncertainties af•e identifiedri Differing scenarios and cost rang are utilizedwhere.. of Mitigated Costs. combination 9�) conditions to avoid appropriate. The report must focus on baseline ns of development scenarios various speculation. Analyses of the For readers with enough accuracy tasaadresultcofiilation, would not provide sewer service costs will vary annually exampl e, and the specific engineering regional and areawide develo ►ent density, requirements identified duritg the design year. Cost Se tic 'Ta*ilc S steins_. Septic tank systems would be considered H P vthan Areawide .-;'or part of individual site development ecosts, exped trathercost approximaately $1`,000 each. costs. Septic tank s stems are _ 7 Renresentat vs • See Appendix 16.10 . _H .8 Off Site % rovement Costs Prorated on an Acrea a Basis and Based on improvement costs associated with Benefits,. See Appendix 16 '10. Off site requirements weere prorated based on tr afficincrements. traffic mitigation Fair 'Share. Assessments and. List of Costs. See Table 2.1-2. i. _see Section 2.1 and Appendix Hilo Types of k'unding Mechanisms. Lve I�olv�.n u00 Acre 14.11 be anded Discussion of Alternat s. See Section A "16.10. 4.2 - Expanded Projecti Area Alternative, and ppendix No Fro�eet Alternative. The No Fro�ect Alternative is discussed in. Section 4111. See Sections 3,1, 3:2, 33, and 3• -nr revised �j,� SDeefic !fits anon. mitigation measures... Chico Sphere of Influence. and F`easibi�ity of Conne Q to the Com- system ,is not: required at this 90 ® muni'ty Sewer System. Connection to, the petit of Chico would not be expected to modify its,Sphere of 'time. The City develop ith Influence if the project area were noostormwateriiTrastructure)ahaardsProject area HS-1 septic tanksr that the City Standard development under urban standards would improve the probability evelo but Mould not guarantee such a Coutisl�would e of a ere change, project were to connect: to the city sewer system, Ftowever�Vifhe dE,Gi change. the city 'would, require A sphere he capacity of the East Connection to the city sewer is not 'likely because t. not be and this Avenue line is dedicated to other development areas y4 T—hhb engitieer- de to at a result the pbeenpstudied. If such ' able to serve ft stationorth ing feasibility bf a lift in Ws area has not iuiproemeant would be required a system' were feasible an equivalent capacity the system to justify the c6n6acti6n The Peas bil- within another, portion of An i.inprovement ilas not been studiedi ity of such ulative.Im acts. See Section 7 for a revised discussion of u.15 Cum �--- cumulatawe impacts' 135 1L RFFFRENCES: PERSONS AND PUBLICAT?ONS CONSULTED Bird,, Michael, Engineer, Rolls, Anderson & Rolls, telephone communication (19$6). Brooks Walt, Sheriff -Coroner, Butte County Sheriffs Offine, telephone communication (1986); Brown,Star, SeniorPlanner, Butte County 'Planning Department, telephone communication County ofu1 ati on Et ement of the General Plan (1984). Butte Count , ' of,, C m i'n Number 1750 (1984) Bute 'Count Ordinance, � y ���inhanci �n '7.nn } ©r , B'utt'e, County of F.nviironmental Review'Cuidelinea (1984). Butte, County of, V usinrt Element of the General Plan (1984),. � y , Chi eo Urban Butte County of 'and, Cit of Chico Nitrate Action nn Pt an. Greater Area (1985). Butte, County of, Sgf`ety Element of the General Plan (1977)• is i _7)• S.�,fety Element of the General Plan. (197 Butte, County of, �„�• �� Butte, County ofthe Planning Department, sed Draft Environmental im%v Qt p ev Report for An Amendment to the Butte County General Plan (1982). ea�.th Education, Count Public Health ` Butte y � Caltele ' telephone (1986). P California State of Department of Tran spor 8th Proa er ss Reoort on � P TrYb-Encs (�'enaratinn Rese reh-Somata (19Ztation, • ' 3). ' California State ate of, Department of Water Resources, ni2o send Wn� 'Hasins in California (1980):. California, State of, Department of Water Resources, 5 of Nitrates 'n the q .. d Mabeeof the Chif�SLAreaj, %ifte Co'snf y (.1984) • ' Chino,: City of, C 4to.6oera1 PlArt (1985). Chico, City of, Bnviro me tal Review Ouidelinea (1985). Chico, City of, Title 16i SlIdiv ambo (1985')• Chico; City of, TWO 10, Lahti 11be R 119'"Ons 1985) Derrick , William Transportation:Coorilinator, City of Chico, telephone communication C1985'..,5• Barth Metrics Incorporated Draft and-Finai_En`6ironme�italnbaet Petiort or fho Oi b�o_nj�d ' eftk a1. Ch ea Red`pvelopIDent---Pr�oleot (1985) . ' 14-1 Earth Metrics Incorporated, Draft Environmental Impact Report ;for, the North Valley Plaza Area Annexation Prezone #91 and Development Agreement (1988) Edell, Stuart, Associate Civil, Engineer, Butte County Public Works Department, personal and telephone communications (1985and .1986). Grant, Gene, District Manager, California Writer Services Company, telephone communication (1986). Grey, Captain, Butte County Sheriffs Department, telephone communication (1986). Hawkins, John, Division Chief, Butte County Fire Department, telephone communication (1986). Hensley, Stan, Assistant, Superintendent/Administrative Services, Chico Unified School District, telephone communiaation (1986) Hughes, Jerry, Chico Area Recreation and Park District, telephone communication (1986)., JHK & Associates, "Chico Urban Area Transportation (1982). Lando, Tom Planning Director; Chico Planning Department, personal. and telephone communication (1984 and 1985).. Mathews, Ben, Director :of Elementary Education, Chico Unified School District, telephone communication (19P6)• McElroy, Ron, Engineer, Butte County, telephone eommunioatioft (1986)• Nunez, Bob, Director ofPublio Works, Cit y of Chico Public Works, telephone communications (1986). Palmerij Edwin, Associate Planner, C%ty of Chico, telephone and personal communication (1986"), ' Pierce .E1Win', Assistant Design Engineer, Butte County, Public Work, telephone F comraunicat#.on (1986). Reid, Tom, Supervising;Sanitorian, Butte County Department of Environmental ' Health, telephone communication (1986)+, Rolls, Anderson and Rolls, Butte County 961ith Chico Area_Storm Drainage Study. (1985). Rolls,, Anderson and Rolis, County of Butte Feasibility Stiudy for Sanitary Seger S ervice 'to the North Chico Area (19814) i ' , y t p Sellers Cliff Planning Director Cit of Chico telephone communication, (1988). Shattucks, Dale, Administrative Assistant for Community Services, City of Chico, telephone communication. (1988)• Terry, Josephine Directori Butte County JAbrary, telephone communication r (1986). Tiller, Dick Batallion Chief, Butte County Fire Departme nt, telephone communication (1986). Tuttle, Laura, Associate Planner, Butte County Planning Department, 'personal, telephone and written ten communication (1985 and 1986), U.S. Department: of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service$ Report and Soil Wi (1976) . U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Surj2L (1929) U.S. Department of 1Housing and Urban Development, Federal, Insurance Administration, Flood Hazard Boundary Map, Butte County, California (1977)• r t 14-3 16 APPENDICES 16.1 Initial Study 16.2 Lotters`in Response to Notice of Pr(tparation 16.3 List of Parcels Involved in the General Plan Amendment ' 16.4 Applicable Zoning Regulations (A-5, SR -1) 16.5 Chico Area Greenline Policy 16.6 Minor Revisions to Figure 3.1-1� General. Plan Land Use Map 16.7 Papulation Data in, Butte County Demographic Data in Butte County 16.9- Reasonably Anticipated 'Future Projects in the Area 16.10 Methodologies and Assumptions for Estimating the Costs of R6commended Mitigation 16.11 Position Statement from Supervisor Dolan on the Nitrate Action Plan 16,12 Discussion of Public improvement Financing Methods 16-1 ' APPENDIX 16.1 INITIAL STUDY AIIIIENDT X )' COUNTYOF, BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (to 6e complete y Lea Agency) 84-02-27-03 • Log n' $4-01-13-02 AP - Vari3Ous BACk,01) Name of proponent QQ�errv�Bu r f11 _ans3_Bs ard_4f Supervisors 2. Address of proponent, and representative (if applicable) pis lrtooberr��Brre11 Boa d o er 2777 Alamo 2947 ;lord Ave. 25 County Center Drive _ Orcwlle ., Chico, CA 95926 _ ':A 9596 5 p (;eneral-Plan_Amen .i project description _ 11: pANDATORI FINDINGS OF SICN1171CANCI YES Mr11 Hi NO— rt. Does the projeOt have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, suh,stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or Wilt1life species:, '.below fish or wildlife, population to drop self- levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or sustaining znimal community, reduce the "number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate Important examples of the -major periods of California history or,prehistory? h. toes the project have the potential to aAieve shot`t•t�rm benefits to the detriment of long=term, environmentaloals? (A short-term impact on the in a environment is one which occurs relat-Ively brief period of time while long-term impacts win endure into the future.) r Does the project have impacts which are iiidividu- (A a lly limited, but cumulatively considerable? project may impart on two or more separate resources is where the .impact on each resource relatively small, but where the effect of tht total of those Ion the environment is significant.) _ rl, hoes the project cooshave environmental effects which - e substantial adverse effects on human will beings, either directly or indirectly`? _ e Tp epi by the Lead Agency) 1iht �%- O n basisof`this initial evaluatlot' il1�'L' find the propo" ' : 'gnificant effect Proposed protect C011:Ln trOT hgve a si bMARATIAN cull] be prepared. t+n the environment r and a N1=11ATIVE l,%�r1: find that although. the ro project could have a sinifi- t,ptherewil not be a .significant Oil the etivironmeProposed Ii11' effect ir+ this case. because the 1CAT,IO MEASUOS described can't cCfeced`stieet the iproject, AeNcCATII on the .attar h have been added to DeCI.ARATION will he prepared. 'i fin ent and an 1:NUIfct RIAS` have a significant effect on ti the xo osed pt•o fe the envIrarrtn , CtNMIN1U t$IPACT REPORT is required, f,ntlN'fl' oR tiliTTli;pi N1Nr i�Alt"frt}N'1 111'II : tta , �I4,i 1984, Uu uittle Assistant Planner Rv% lowed h?i 16, 14 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMMCTS xp anations o7•.Y Y'yes ' and ".maybe" answers are required on attached sheet(sh 1. EARTH_ Will the proposal result in significant: a. Unstable YES MAYBE NO earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? bi Aisrtiptions, displacements, compaction or `— overcovering of the soil? c„Y Change in topography cr ground surface --- relief .features? d. Destruction, covering or modificatiol, of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off-site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or c;ianges in siltation', deposition or erosicn which may modify the channLJ 'of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or Any bay, inlet or lake? g.i.oss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas. h Exposure of, p people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes„ landslides, mud- - slides, ground failure; or similar hazards? 2, AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial`; 14 4 a.` Air emissions or deterioration of ambient .air gL►al,it b. The crc;a tion of objectionable odors, smok'a or fumes?, C. Alteration” of Air, rnor�ement moisture or s ' , "'` "—'— temperature; or any, -change �:� cl mate`, locally or regionally? ,. 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Changes in currents, or the course or; direction of dater movements in either marine or fresh wate"41? b. Changes in absorpt lou rates, drainage patterns, or the rate � and amount of Surface runoff? c. Need for off-site "stirfaee drainage improve- men ts, including vegetation 'remo�tal channel- ization or culVer"t instaYjation? d. Alterations to the co;)rse or flow of flood water`s?� e. Change" in the amoi►nt of surface water In any water body? f: Discharge into surface waters; or in anv al teratiol` of surface 14ater quality, 'including but limited to not temperature, dissolved ozygen or turbidityl' Alteration g. of the direction or rate of flow:""- of ground waters? Change in the quantity o:f ground waters" either through direct additions of with! drawals; or through interception of do fer by cuts or exca�`at.ons? due,,tion an the amountof -water otherwise avYa1, able for ubli.r water supplies? r�atedeha: ards'ple or property to water SU ch` as floodings' 1.b.1�2 � A, PL:�NT L�pE. " Ivk[1 the proposal resu?.t in stantal:' . Y p a. C angt� in the diversity of s ecaes, or nu��ber of any species of plants in trees; shrubs, grass,, craps., and aquatic plants) +..._ , b. Reduction of the numbers of an}, unique„ rare of or endangered species plants? 'Introduction Of ` new species of plants into an C. arca, or in a barrier to the normal ;'eplenish- -. i ment oA exist.inb species? 7 d, Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop. 5. A,,41 AL LIFE. Will theproposal result in substantial;: or a. CnangL in the diversity of species, numbers of animals (birds, laud animals of any species Including reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthi: organisms or insects}? b. Reduction in the :numbers ofany unique, 'rare --= _. or endangered species of animals? Introduction of new species of 'animals into - -r C. an area, or result in a barrier to the migration. or movement of animals? ---- a: Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? ' C OZSE. Will the proposal result in substantial: levels? a Iricrea=es in existing noise of people to severe noise levels? b. Exposure 1 is LIGHT AND GLARE. j!"11 the proposal produce LI s`sgnifcant"light and glare? 3, L.ANID USE, S ill the proposal,.retultt in a lattnedan�lattned ial alteralti'on of the present- or p land use of an area? 91 NATURALRESOURCES: 14111 the p;copo al result in suhstantiAl*.natural a+ tihe mate of use of any OK- resources? bo bep etion. of any non-retie-Wa.ble natural resources? 1Q RISK Op. UP8tt, Will the proposal mrolve: a`— a s ; cif explosion or the xeletise of hazard- R out substances (including) but not limited to, or ;radiation) in the pesticides, chemicals event of an accident or.u'pset con6 t-ions?' b possible interference atIth an emergency evacuation plan? rL,.`onse plan or emergency 11. +OP1iI,ATI0►3 1�iIt the prrPpo,dl al tet the location, eate of le human rFj—�tr�ron, den�ityi or growth �._ ropt►Ia::on. 1 110 51W ►� lv'%ll the proposal affect c:�is`tin hciusi.ng ia�►s r1+;? or urs. sttc a clem,Tn:1 for adiii Lia nd l6 1.� par■ 1 9, 13LCREATIGN.' 4:11 the proposal, result in'S impact upon the duality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 1 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a. Will the proposal: result in the alteration " of or the destruction, of a prchistoric or " historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse phys:c:al or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c.` Does ;.he proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal, restrict existing religious` or sacred L+ses within the potential impact"f V, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AP �auGeneral January 1984 the Board of Supervisors initiated Ilan Amendment from, Orchard and Field Crops to "urban" .nor a 400 acre or more area known as Bell-1Iuir, t Bounded by � the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks. to t' }ie tcest, East Ave. and lionshaw to the south; Alamo Avo , to the east , and Bell and Muir Avenues to the north: This ,area has long been planted in orchards. of the Bc,'11-t�iuir arca inde- IebaliCd for aGeneral pCJ1cietly pl' 1 Flan Amendment from Orchard ,Ind Field Crops to Agricultural-Re,sidoritiah, 1 acre minimums: The loc_at,iot of this _41 Plan :Amendment- is -essentially t,tc bt�t tli i same,e boundar es are irregular, encompassing more or less 270 'acres. Thero ' ec p J t is located on Class I and 11 soils: Vina Loom, Vena Pima Sandys Loam, and Farwell Loain. These soils are cap- able of supporting a wide variety of agricultural crops, Many of the parcels are planted in orchards, 6 y prefer Fort acres is the red minimum parcel size,l liowever, as small, as 10 acres can be viably fanned atad rovid - y p e a scu- ondar° income. assuming 1 acre minimumarcels from marl or loss 253 2 p to i;iore or less 312, 3 lots could be created, and 'more oil less 4 261-522 lie►.+ homesites developed:._ Telephone intervicW Bill 01sen S 7j84 1 Farm Advisor- Walnuts: x 40 acS,40/lb t41/ $54,400 1000accosts 4Q acWjOo0) net $14,'#00 moderate inc:omb (count,y. averdgt i1lGomd) . Private rivate a'pplicationc 3 Board Application, 4 Build out is 2 units per parcel. * As parcel sizes decrease ecanomic; of scale work to propot-- U tlonall _y increase farming costs Y. If variances are granted or boundary line modifications are be 5$ higher. approved, these figures could More specific311y- 261-522 homesites equals: 626-1;252 persons 115-229 school children 6,,260-12,520 daily vehicle trips 5 acres) 1 new community park (more or less .6-1.2new police officers runoff 432 cfs (see Chico Area Land Use Plan) The very size aiid intensity of, the project dictates that air (E -11Z) or a supplimenr to the Cl"! ='n f;nvironmental Impact, Report Area Land Use Plan E R be pre'pared;. In 1982 an-EIR wasP repared on the Chico Area Land Use Plan, which included these properties, - Regional setting, soils and ether back ground information which sufficiently covered; and would also apply to this project are shouiu'be refLrenced. The EI,R does not discuss circulation within the "Bell -Muir" area Tecific A-5 or A-1.0 until a sp and recommends a holding -zone of is to discuss circulation and drainage. (Page 122)' plan prepared Bell -Muir, outside of the Shasta Union Drainage Assessment I Dis- lacking drainage facilities and ex- trict, has been identified as calized flong', Page 85) to � pex�ences Development of Bell biui,r w ould be Contra to the Land Use. Element dewelopme'nt in flood prone or areas 6t.herwise policy of restricting lacking drainage improvements. It was further r1commended that a districts) be formed to fund all pub.. i o improti�ernents . While tl»s project is Located jielteof statehecontinuedrate urbanization the Division Of finv3.Toninental e ground water dei8r ora - on septic tanks Will un8oubtedly ncreas tion. (Memo of march 20', 1984) The Chico Unified School, District has noticed Butte County that —thin the v i`unt continued approval' of dovelopmeht projects funding mecha"nismb constitutes t gateJ Sigrlifi absent a cant impact.are the Chico Aroa Land Use EIR This Elft may ," , �` icus items. nde,pr?matadone and fong on checklist for backgrou �. 1: overco'v'ering of soil, 'erosion increased sedimentata bn # surface and round 3 ; drainage, water "quality 8,11,:12: land ,use issues Stich as! tstif cation and naaedafpreGendedevelopmentAmb-dm th the impact on 'tire already PP the exterisive investment ,in n public east including improvements,. L64-6 APPENDIX 1b.2 Letters in Rer`ponse to Notice of Preparation PLANNING OFFICE _ bmeCoRaro«99Car+n. FEB 24 1984 +V 5unp;s cHi UTY;.>+CHICO 0,t o- 4"k 4�,"` So- 3�i� Cit�Jf9r�ljll Cr,co CA 95v. � OrWnk February 23 , 1984 - f94'Sa 8a5sg�' AISS A59 4r' Butte. County Plasnning Department 25 County Center Drive Orovilie, CA. 95965 RE! Midway OntsharId Neidinger/Sweet Nectar, and Bell -Muir General Plan Amendm The City of Chico finds that the "proposed projects rioted above are in direct conflict with the 1990 Compromise M.an and urban growth "policies established after, extensive discussions between the City and County. In oUrr opinion, each of the above referenced projects may ,generate significant impacts. An independent consultant should be retained to prepare a Draft Environmental impact Report addressing the following items for each project area: 1. The Jdstificat on and need for the General Plan amendments 2, The impact an the already approved development In the past including the extensave investment in public improvements As a result of development.'in agricultural., areas nest of the adopted Greenline., 3. Impacts on;jiublic services and public improvements including, - but not limited to fully improved streets storm drainage, schools auksz police and fire protection. parks,; 4T Project impacts on "shallow well 'domestic water systems, and in particular, potential increases in nitrate levels within i each project area. 5, Traffic generation and circulation problems as a result of full 'buildout in theproject area, The City would like to be kept informed of any action to be taken on the above projects; and is looking forward to reviewing and commentiht on environmental documents prepared for the proposed projects. Sincerely, r gdWin A, Palmeri Assistant Planner ESP# b P A-8(, 162- 1 DeMrtment of Transportation uisb District Conta.cta and Gane - Regional Offices )on Carstock Ao Naylor, Regional Manager, ODepartment of Transportation- District 1 O DelArtment of Fish and Game 627 Cypress -1656 Union Street Redding, CA 96001 Eureka, ,CA 95501 916/246-bt74 7C)i'/442-,5761 Michelle Gallagher P,. Jensen, Regional k=gcr ODepartmedt of Transportation District, 2 Department of Fish.and Game 19'01 Nim'vs P.oad, Suite A -0 '95670 Redding,�Uid�Oipe 516/365-0922Rancho ' G 016/246-6404 ' O Br,iaa J. Stith nt of Tnsportation pc+,par,mera District =3 - �'\ 1 ) B. Hunter, Regional M nager Depar�ent of Fish ind Game Yyotmtville Facility, Bldg« C U3 Pi St:eeL �./ 5 ountville, CA 0,4599 Mu—sville, CA 95901 7071934-4560 916/674-4277 Uarn Uelandr7 G. pokes, Regional. Manager O Dergrtment of Transportation District 4 /''`� ( Dnd epartmeat of Fish eGame 1234 East Shaw Avenue liincon Annex �,,i Fresno, CA :93726. Sx r,. cnc: x CAJ 94111, 20:11222-3761 . 415/657-1887 ^�, :Jerry Lawaer Department of Transportatioa Fred A. Torthiey Jr., Reg, lunager pelxtrts,cat of Fish and Game Imo,, District 5 '0945 tLst Brrndaay f) tiigucra Street Long Beach, CA 90602 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 213/590-5113 rlc $oa .,-i.4-3114 ldert Pallier Rolf 'E. kill Department District of transportation a 0245 lfuine Resources iic61on Test Broadway Long aeon!, h,1 cp8tl2 Fresno, CA 93778 213/690-0155 2Q9/d1�4--iD88 e0 Wayne Ballentine Yn Stute rater Resddre es Control Bo�ati Depar#w* of Transrtation District ";t 7 JoanrJUrandith 120 Spring St Ltxs/Ahgeles, CA L§W12 0 Tater te_Q6tiees Control Boakd DiVision'of Ratter Quality 213 6.^0-5335 0,06 Box 100, Sacrace.nto,.tk 9sabi Robert Pote 916/3?. -341 ofTransportJerry �4� Johas tH Sleet State Water 'Robources Control Bbiri! San #ekmardino, CA 92403O Delta'Onit, 714/393-•1629 2,.25 19th St, Sacranto, CA 9Sn19 �^acramento, Pio. Box 100, SCa 95801 Tam Dayak" 0ofDepartment Transportation District 9 300 S.5uit Ellin Street a Ai Yang State -tater Resources Control Boaii Division of `rater nights Bishop, CA 94614 901 P Street Bio 714/873-84i1 Sadf2meinto, CA 916/324-°571tl John Gat,1aw _ Depai�ttent 46t Transportation District.lO 9i*gioual Tatee Quality Control Board 41 ./ P+�19 Reglon 1± City Stoo-ktonj CA 95tdi Jim Cheshire Department of l'i^a,,�pbrtatlon 0 District 11 2929"J= Sfel t:. S an Diego, CA 9213f1 7141237-6755 Inter -Departmrnga'MemorcnduM wf* co. Rare" c«�m, Superti soti, to ' Hilda Wheeler AUG 31 1984 `'" Supervisor Jane Dolan 0! POW ; Orora1m, Califbrni4 i proposal for Bell—MuirµArea k UOJEC CAT E. August 24 1984 The Hell --Muir area, 456+ acre,A-5 zoning district (bounded NESW fronting on Muir Ave. -Bell Rd., the S -R zoning just b properties Y and H . 92), has been the west of Hay -Cusick.:, Henshaw Ave., wl'' Subject of much dF��'rte the last four year's. The has been zoned A-5 since the mid -601s and witha couple area of exceptions Eisenhauer rezone blip on Bell Rd. and Foreman there have been no new parcels hotitesi.te segregation on Rodeo Ave.) 5 -acre in 15 years. Howevex, many smaller created smaller "'ere in existence prion to the effective date than 5 -acre parol." 'jOTii�? i:is�atecl legally, some not)j, The focus :of the of the zoning argument has been the lli:dta proposed Chico. Area General Plan debate that,Pi�na at amendmentrus-;e.s,. During the 2+ years on forth and interminailly distru� ec least; prbpt`�sa.ls were set in agricultural General Pian (Ml) designation and 1) pa.ace area A-5; 2) place area in Agricultural -Residential GP ,teave zonixag a:s designation and re -zone it to a _acre min?.inum ,zoning; 3) place (engineers, the area in a Study Area and hire necessary consultants drainage ,and traffic plan and. analyze other, planners) to develop a impacts before` challg' the- zoning. --This_ proposal included pro -- in g w rty ouners area pay'for-this ridin. a mechanism to have trope study In September X:982, the 'Board of Supervisors approved #1. In '� initiated. A (".p aojendment ,that; ,xould put December 198.3, the Hoard in, some unspecified urban GP designation and some unspec-• this area, fled zoning: (Since the Board did not specify, CEQA requires an to �e analysss of the Forst case" possible �rhich coulownerpp�ttned residential.) In 1984, a property high density g a GP desig- representing 270 acres of area was presented proposing of 1• -acre minimum. nation of Agriculttiiral-Residential and a zon'ng An E2R has been deemed necessary is importanfor both the Huard -initiated and 9I s t to point out as 80mo An ter petitions. This beliet that this area has been studied peope hold therroneous le when it hasn't: The Board has several choices to make: .4 �i<s matter without bringing clarity or I.Continue to arg ' sa rra've been doing ... nce Septeinkter This i ..,,.y what ciosiire. -� 1982. i � i A11ow the Hoard -initiated amendmentmentproceed in the usual 2: p to it as `thi�:'w' the mannc r. This' �iouari mean pioritae8: This is a slow process: able P_ light of est.. s can in J() 2-5