Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B MOOSEBERRY/BURREU GPA/REZct .�; x TIBLL3.24. ESTATED FUTURE .DATLX ttiAPFTC INCREASES' AS50CI,'�Ti��D WITH THE PROPOStb P.OJECT r CT ROADWAY PROJECT GENERATED VEHICLE TRIPS (!a) r , Eh.ST AVENUE SR 32 to Cussiok 500 (b) Cussiuk to The Esplanade 950 The Esplanade to SR 99 500 SR 99 to Cohasset 450 'TESPLANADE 8'',at`.on to Lassen 100' Lassen to East 500 East to Cohasset _ 1040 STATE ROUTE 32; � North of Muir 935: Muir to East 100 South of, East, 540 WEST SHASTA 270 i y L � " WEST LASSEN HENSHAW 400 ti 1 GUYNN (South of.East;) 70;. _ E CUSSICY. West Shasta to. Henshav 270 Henshaw to East 150 South of East 70 (a) Noy:: esents the incremental increase in traffic o in both diredtidns can these "roadways due to the development alloged by the proposed project. (b) Ma;Aimum. Source: Earth Ndtrios Tndoeporatedy 1956: 1 4 !! \r I -TABLE 3.`2-5. EXISTING AND 'PROJECTED TRAFFIC VOLUI`.tES ON MAJOR STREETS IN THE PROJECT AREA WITH AND WITHOUT THE PROPOSED PRaJECT' ,i STREET SEGiIWIT EXISTING FUIJRE U000) FUTURE (42000) DAILY VOLUME (a) DAILY VOLUI4 DAILY VOLUME W/0- PROJECT (b) W/ PROJECT U41 �!1AST AVS, 1 ff I -�-'� `8R 32 to Dixon/Cussick _ 9,716 15,500 16,000 Dixon/Cussick to The Esp?anadQ 11,257 26,700 27,650' The. Esplanade to SR 99 - 16,340 291700 301200 SRI 99` to Cohasset 12,476 18x600 19`,050 ,r THE, ESPLANADE Eaton to Lassen8070 18x50 18,60O Lassen to .East 14,,684 26,800 M300 'East to Cohasset 26x056 250800 (o) 26,840 rSTATE ROUTE32 North of Eaat South of East N11 9x606 12,700 11x400 12:835 11,940" increased' by too percent (a} 19811986. 'per year for five years; Derrick, (b) From 'the Butte County Cirodl,ation_ Element; 1984. (c) Indicates underestimated future volume or overestimated existing volume. RA d Not Available rSource: Earth Mutrica, 1985; Butte County ,C3.rcul.ation Element, 1984; Derr-lickr 1986; and Piercer 1986. , r r r 1 levels of service at these locations. Specific measures to maintain acceptable levels of service in these locations are recommended under Mitigation Measures in this section. THE ESPLANADE. The additional traffic generated on West Lassen, West Shasta, Henshaw, and East Avenue 'Would. affect travel capacity along The Esplanade by increasing left turn conflicts at main intersections. The impacts of this traffic at The Esplanade intersections with West Shasta would not be considered significant and would not require mitigation due to ;the relatively low traffic volumes invol,"tied and the remaining capacity at this signalized intersection. However, the loss of travel capacity at the interseotons of The Esplanade/West Lassen. and Esplanade/Henshaw would require mitigation. Consistency with Local Trans ortation P leonine. -The proposed project does.nolt, significant, impacts which would substantially alter the ,land use 1 forp p g thegexistn ent AbY sda in the Chico area. However, data bases utilized ddtrannotranten lannin p, anticipate the proposed development density the projzct area. The construction of the. Eaton Road extension would, not be affteted by the proposed Gene Y ral Plan Amendment or relateld development but would encourag sit and. would increase traffic in the project area e. urban den in the future. The impacts of the extension would be examined ,and Jzi:tigated'. Prior to approval of such a project. The feasibility and desirabil,ity of the Lassen Avenue extension throua h the project area would he altered b,t the proposed project.,Mitigation would be required toaddress this iinpttot, The ;proposed General Plan Amendment appears to be inconsistent with the policy~ �I is the County Circulation Element which indicates that the county will: maintain the integrity of thus Chico Area Greenline (see Section 3,1,.-Land Uses;_, Planning, Applicable Plans ani+ Policies for discussion of the Chico. Area �ireenline) The: Circulation Elementfs intent in maintaining the Chico re& Greenline is probably to reduce trip generation in areas of low urban density where roads would require substantial. improvements to meet coutnty+ standards: The remaining policies and requirements .presented in the, Existing Setting ofthis report address financing of 'roadway improvenntapplYdirectly to s: Man of these beasur esI. this report. roadwayim improvements recommended as mitiB atiotl measures in -Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. The proposed project Would increase pedestrian and bicycle activities by allowing increased urban density in the project area. Thewould Iiigntidaenshaw nt safety impactsor ed red,to s such g be expected to create Y h as Avenue* Incremental safety impacts along major arterials would potentially be significant. Prosect related bicycle activity and motor vehicle trips Mould increase the need.for appropriate bike�rays and pede'str'ian street 'crossings ;al,ong major arterials, such as Eaat Avenue, sand cede near Jay Partridge Elementary School. Neta crossings by elementary sohool students Would be limited and temporary, because these crossings would be reduced-'by busing, the crossings Mould occur at sin ;gnaled erassings iiitb' relativelX low' cross street traffic and because the District ibt6hds to eohstruct anew school ,north of East Avenue and webt of The Esplanadd is the future. older students taould Dross fihe 1;splanade at Bast Avenue near ;Jay Partridge Scbiaol4 Although these students , student; thE' present, a less significant safety ,impact than younger r potential fo'r eonfliet6 is still important. The use of a paid. crossing guard at '00etain houea of the 'day could mitigate pedestrian teoshings 3:2..16 near ,Iay Partridge School. Thi,- safety measure is currently applied, in Chico, at.,-M04Anus Elementary School. Funds for such a,measure near Jay Paktridga Schooha have not been directed toward this aotiviuy because of other budget priorities 01e1mley, 1957) 211k;tc Transit. The proposed project would allow' development which could ihor.ease patronage of Route 1 of the Chico Area Transit System. However, because the distance between most of the project area and the closest bus stOP i%, more than one mile, many of the residents may not utilize the bus service. Impacts from the future development are not expected to be significant, but would 'incrementally increase transit demand along the East Avenue corridor. It cluster development is proposed, measures to encourage transit patronage I hould be required during site plan review. merizency Access and Circulation. The additional dwelling units allowed by the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the need .for emergency. 04vice access to the project area. Unconventional intersections in the projectearea should be realigned to improve turning movements. MITIGr�TOli MEASURES The following measures are recommended by the staff of Butte County and the City of Chico to mitigate the: traffic impacts identified, in this. section. - The applicants should be required to pay for all costs :associated, with realignments f each of the unconventional intersections in the project vicinity. g specific realignments should be determined by the Butte County Board of Supervisors. Realignments at the following, intersections should be completed with buildout of the area: Bell/Muir, Ball/Nord, Bell/Gwynn, Bell/Alamo and Rodeo/Nord. The total cost is expectedto be approximately $6,250 if realignments are coordinated with other road improvements.. - The applicants should be required to improvethe roads in the project area':to the standard set by the Butte County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor s. The applicable standard would be. 8RS"1 if the county requires minimum parcel sizes equal to or greater than 1.001 acres rural development standards:: The Applicable standard for !,,0 AOre parcels and urban. standards;is RS -2, whiob inca.U&-s sidewalks, curbs and gutters (storm drainage Imfeastructure). They timing for the required improve�ients should be determined by the Butte County Board of ' Supervisors. Improvements to the following roadway segments should be , completed With buildout of the area: Muir; from SR 32 to Bell; Rodes, from 1juir to Henshaw; Nord, Guynn:and .Alamo, from Bell to East; and Rebshawr from Nord to Alamo. The City of Chico would 'request that these roadways meet the standards of the city or county; whichever are more stringent. The total cost is expected tobe approximately $1,144,125 to SRS - achieve the 1 Standard and $2,262;$25 to achievo thd, RS -2 standard. The,applicants should be e64UJred to contribUte funds for the - construction of left turn pockets and for the elimination of on street parking along Esplanade at Henshaw; and along gsplat,ade at Lassen: The total cost for this improvement is expected to be approximately ;20,500. An additional x)632 vould be required, it signal madifications 3:2-17 were., required. This contribution is a Pro rata share based on the project's traffic increment compared to the total traffic voluai'e' and a h $151000 cost for signal modification. T e applicants should be required to contribute funds for the installation of traffic signals at the following intersections (East/Nord, East/Guynn, East/Cussick, and East/Alamo). The total cost for these improvements is expected to be-approximately $40,125. The contribution is a pro rata share based on the project's traffic Increment c ompared to the total traffic volume. The applicants should be required to contribute funds for widening East Avenue to allow for five lanes (central continuous left turn lane). This requirement would involve a 13 foot widening from Alamo halfway to Gu nn, and a 26 foot widening from SR 32 halfway to Guynn Sidewalks, curbs and gutterQ would not be required of the applicants; but a pro rata contribution of funds (based on traffic) for a storm drainage culvert would be required. Th,e total cost for these expected.ta be $132,613. improvements is Site design-criteria which increases opportunities f should be tUraged if specific development proposals involve clusterrse or transit patrona of developmenent,. Access to the future extension of Eaton Road should be provided '"via sell Road. Intersections with Nord, Guynn and Alamo should not be encouraged Unless future land use intensification and related roadway improvements occur, prior to extension of these roadways. _ e� ectad as a result of development -, The following measures are recamended to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts .p elopment in the project vicinity and buildout in the project vicinity and Chico Urban Area. - Bette County end the City of Chico should �oquire appropriate funding fftm developers, F'HWA and'CAL-TRANS for long range traffic improvement Programs as required by the County Circulation Element and, CATS. The City of Chico and Butte County should review the Chico.Urban Area, Transportation Study's recommendation for extending Lassen Avenue west to State Route 3E• Pundirg'for such an. improvement would �,e difficult withaUt further density increases or an area widefunding district, ff this proposal is determined to be a long range requirement, Butte`County Wouldthe area. require property, dedications for right-of-way prior to development in the The Chico tTnified Sahooj District should mitigate safety impacts related oo d bieycl".e crossings neat+ Jay Partiridge School. Paid t POdestriAri an g gUaeds could be used to Mitigate exists and rossin ' condition's Stith oe without the proposed project. projected safety v`l . 1 :�w18 F ,4 343 GEOW."Y/HYDROLOGY A, STING, SETTING Spglg . The project area is located on a broad alluvial plain Imown as the j�Ch;tto Fan, Which is located in the northern Sacramento Valley between the ; «, ,. y g gr ��r,�ject area is snderlain b Recent Age coarse a footb,ills to the east, The �'„ �` ento River to the west. and the Sierra Nevada alluvium consisting of :Unconsolidated silt, sand, gravel and cobbles. The coarse grained alluvium is Overlain by a loamy surface soil layer and is underlain by Sierra Nevada too thill metaiaorphic and Volcanic rocks, BOILS. Surficial boils occurring in the project area are composed primarily of hams belonging to the Vina Farwell association (USDA, 19706). The Vina Farwell association is characterized by good natural drainage, m6derately sloe to moderate subsoil permeability, slow to medium runoff and no erosion hazard. The Vina Farwell association also possesses a moderate shrink/swell expansion) potential, a measure of the volume change of a soil with a change It moisture content, and a moderate allowable soil pressure rating, a measure of suitability of a soil for foundation pressure. The Soil Conservation Se.^vice identifies and rates the agricultural potential and .limitations of soils into eight land capability elassifcat.ions. Soils in Classes I to IV are considered possess characteristics which :li�mitcultural, and soils in Classes V to V217 agricultural uses and are better suited for forestry, range, wildlife nor recreation: The Vina;Farwell soils have been Identified as Class I and II prime agricultural soils Portions l o . of the j area also contain surfieia? soils composed of clay ams belonging: to�the �Con ejo Aereendos--association. The Conejo Aerrtindos a.ssoeiation sails are characterized by good natural drainage,: moderately slow to slow subsoil permeability, slow runoff and no erosion hazard. However, when these soils are eompactedi, they can become highly impermeable (Edell, 1986). The Conejo Berrendos soil% also possess moderate to high shrink/swell potential and moderate allowable soil pressure, The Conejo Berrendos soils are Class :IIIc prime agridultural soils. SEISMICITY. The Chico area doers not have a history of severe seismic activity '(City of Chico, 1076). There are no active or potentially active faults or 'Alquist Priolo Special Studies Zones located in the Chico area which .includes the project area. There is no record of surface rupture, occurring in Chica. In addition, there is no documented history of ground failure, such a.i liquefaction, lateral spreading, lurching and idiffePential settlement in Chico. Thei ClevelandHill fault, the only known active fault in butte County, is located approximatelff 30 miles ,southeast of the Project area* t�ovemen.t along the Cleveland Hill fault was re;;ponsible for the 5.7 magnitude (Richter Scale)' Oroville earthgaake in August, 11975: The Oroville earthquake was felt in Chico, but no damage was recordtldi 11 series of short, north/narthwest . trending inactive faults are located approximat4oly ten miles northwest:of the a project area. .3.8-1 1.4 addition to the 197,E Orov lle ezrthquake, ground shaking from earthquake ' picenters outside the immediate area has been felt previously in the Chico g g "^ Was area• However the greatest intensity of ground shaking ie<.orded in Chico ,0 on the Richter Scale and there is no historical evidencE4 of any oignificant damage having occurred. A statistical estimati6n. of earthquake I, Aohter Scale magnitude, as a function of estimated return ;period for California, .indicates Chico could experience an earthquake df magnitude 8.0 on tba Richter Scale once every 40 yearn. Other studies have, however, suggested 000ller maximum intensities '(City of Chico, 1976) rolo DRAINAGE, The overall topography in the project area slopes ;gently to the {� r4orthwest toward Mud Creek, which is located approximately one mike northwest of the project area, Lindo Channel is located approximately 0.75 miles _south of the -project area. At presenia, there are no existing storm drainage r ; facilities within the project area. Overland runoff in the project area.. ponds and ed surface drainage percolates -project the soil. See Section 3.4,, PublicServicesand Utilities courses in the ro`ect 'ar,.a. See for a discussion of existing and planned storm drainage facilities in the project area, A storm drainage study completed for the north Chico area, including the project area, has recommended installation of' collector storm drain lines just I south of the Southern Pacific Railroad and along Bell Road in order to a a Figure el)otential Urban development of the storm drainage study area (see p 8 3 or lines would flow by gravity to Shasta anion Drainage Assessment District (SUDAD) channels which would ultimately discharge into Mud Creek (Rolls, Anderson & Polls, 1985). The proposed collector lines Cave been desgred to carry 100 year storm,flows, is accordance with Butte County Public Works bepartment and Butte County Improveruent Standards. The development density assumption for the project area Wien two to six dwelling units per acre. One lot more dwelling units per acre �(or lot sizes of less than 1.001 aores), is the threshold density, at which I:hderground.drainage facilities are needed (Rolls Anderson, Rolls, 1985, Eri,111, 1986). If scoria draina$e infrastructure is required in the project>vid,inity, annexation'to SUDAb Would ,be required prior to the use of their fad lli'ties. FLOODIM The subject parcels are not located in the 100 year floodp lain (06S. Department > of Housing and Vrban Development; '197'4) . Mud Creek and Undo Channel are modified ephemeral channels 'designed to provide flood control for Big Chico Creek. The project area may, however, be subject to minor, localized st6tmwatet ponding due to the lack of drainago infrastrUdture 'aad soil compaction. OROUNDWATER The project area arw Chico vicinity is uhderlain by extensive groundwater supplies of the Sacramento valley, groundwa'te'r basin (California i nepartment of Water fiesourcebi 1980), Section 8,4t Public Servidos and i Utilities} eontaihs a discussion of water :�Upply and d,Lstributibii in the prof eot area. There are three water bearing zones beneath Chico. These bcxnes are the fitOdoW intermediate, and deep aquifers. Grouwbdwater generally, itov+es fWesterlyand wfrom the shallow to intermediate aquifer and from tine intermediAt,6 toaq deep uifer. p A The shallow w zone contains unconfined ground .surface in groundwater at recharge directly thick alluvial 'The an vast Y for inf.1ltration of materlal. less than 20 feet Groundwaterfrom leachflelds precipitatio shallow zone r in the , end urban runoff n, strewlow a°eIVes the ground surfacei�itermediate from dr , domestic. rechar in older aquifer occurs at ainage wells. ge from stre, elluv.1uzn. depths 20 overlying saturated s incised in older The lhtermediate to 50 feet below. Formation. alluvium alluvium, throe a9U.1fer receives and Possible, subsurface through, Vertical dee inflow leakage from The p aquifer is from the Tuscan Which is confined b located .1n the sand agUifer, which Y less permeable clay, gravel of the TUsc municipal uellsYields large amounts of Y, tuff and mtdflo an Formation, arca east , re'V'eives rechar groundwater w layars. The deep Of Chico (CDWR, 198�);ae mainly from stream deep.irri,ation and Since 1951 that drain the ' r recharge foothill local discharges in of the loo aY Sacramento the Chico groundwater basin Groundwater Valle' Y groundwater region, in contrast togeaerallY has ndwater tables basin other exceeded betveen 1 in ,the Chino which have exper.1e localities in the have 91 and '1961 as area were lowered b Beed an overdraft. 'since stabilized a1. result of intens.1f. Y an; estimated 1982). f or have risen agricult 10 feet between WATER two and .six feet irrigation, but R OVAL1Ty. (Butte County; surface ►pater, Or W4ter tested(so--ground,whter, quality data are Table 3.,3_1). However, not to c l' available amain ttor from' three wells .1n the for project area amownts Runoff g icultural and of sediment the sub�eot. area have been a r parcels urban develo and contaminants would be,_ Groundwater Pment n the characteristic xpeeted in the dee areawof reelecting the, p aquifer is prdVIde excellent minetal generallyy of good 8roundwater gUalit mineral shallower recharge u Of surface 9ual.1ty, aquifers Poorer waters standards With nitrate g a13ty ground._ in :creeks which of 45 X0.111 eoncentrat.1ons a water is found in to humans Yarns per liter xceedIh parts of partieUlar$r g'drink.1 children ns' (CDWR, 1984), rte water Each less than three to six Nitrates area of high bit than months .a e are X1 and another t° unsewere 4 is located 0.75 m.1let 6 ons Cone concert d residential s south of° is located 0,75 mi ® from urban 44velo rte areas and also li les northeast es iphe project ar individual' nt drain the direct ea) Underlies nitro' disposal age Wh veils (as discussed ion t>f groundwai�er gen, phosphorus and which othe ddmestic below flow major,souree chlorides was�ewat The nuX0erous j10 known of the elevated shallow er containing drainage wells nitrate coneentratibnnrooridwati�p groundwater ,zone at off !'et re a,reoso re t drainage surface water site iodations The systems rUnoff that urn to hart (CnWRi from area6 )f the sh" made" uat:e � low TO resolve the tir,face water, addl tiobai Waterexistin 6 nitrate s C the CD1; qualit problem ih the Chico y irapairX0ent of and.. area reed area connect to mmended that valuable prevent construction -of the exists (1) oil groundwater . ng sei�era residential re,aources in the ex.1st.1n additional drains age system areas in the c racy g draipa$e tells age wells sho d be on as feasibl, chid, mmendations should be el prohibited , and (p) s4a]low a Pertain to p.. iminated as soon as add all 9Uifer $rotsndwgtera propriate we11 construct feasible. - quality (cb�R, i98). other study ion and X0onitonin g or- 17 ABLE 3.3-1. NITRATE DATA IN THE PROJECT VICINITY LOCATION (a ti ) TELL IDENTZF NITRATE CONCENTRATION ICATION CODE (milligrams per liter) (b) Bay Avenue (east) 16_-1 3•a and 1 Bay Avenue 16-E-1 `1' - Between Lassen and .Shasta 164,'-1 q 40 ' BetWeert 'Lassen and Shasta 16-K-2 3 'Between Lassen and Shasta i6.•G-� 62 Nord 17_P-1 9 and 10 Nuir 17`ti-� 15 Muir 1T-ti-1 0 and 33 (a) The Butte County Health Departbent Is mapping these Well sites and is Correlating the data: No further location descriptions were provided. (b) The nitrate standard for groundwater is 45,mg/l. TWO Values are -presented there Nitrate concentrations have been bested twice. The coneentrati.ons presented in this table may rotted the depth of' the well rather than a higher oontamination I'evel Source: R. Mid, 1981. t 33-4 �.. / ._V:7 1 r1 i Thi3 City of Chico and Butte County have adopted aroa,ter Chico Urban Area '(Butte County and City OfBitratChicoe'1985)n Plani Thei for goalthe Of t}io si Nitrate Action Plan i a. zo e�CNinitrate problem in therevent further degradation and to minimize the, groundwater. The primary, objectives of the Nitrate Action Plan are to jointly develop a Sanit Stary Sewerage Plan and Drainage 'Plan for the Chioo area. and a The sewerage elan would include standards and requirements for sanitary t0lerage facilities, land use designations, and density .areas, and a time schedule for requiring te elil�inat3onaofmseptiortankseanded cot�pectio7 to the sanitary sewerage system. Densit de�'ined for the Project area at this time (Reid, y maximums have not been Vould include standards for the elimi 19exi The drainage plan nation of all existing drainage wells and atAndards for the installation of temporary drainage facilities, such as leach fi4,01. The Butte County health Department, currentl throe dNelli units � y`allows no more than n6 per acre in areas to be temporarily served by septic tants/leach field systems, This standard applies to areas that will a"ventual23* be nerved, by a sewer system. .A feasibility study of providing sanitary sewer service to the north Cficci ,area, :including the Project area, recommended installation of a trui,k sawer .which would accommodate potential urban development Inderson, Rolls study). The trunk seiner, whicwouldf the area (Ro1Zs; feet northwest of the project area, would conne0t the project ass parea mtoethe 750; sewage treatment plant in Chico. However, fi.nax�cing for implementation of this plan is uncertain at this time (Tuttley 1986). for ongoing Brown and B y Muir peoperty., Caldwell scuta a stud does Pct include the Bell, MACTS .9PUICP• Residential development allowed as a result of the General Flan Adrendment and amendment of the Woo Area Breen Line Mould have n impacts, on the geologic setting of the ;project area; o significant SQILS,;. Surficial soils located in the project sigarea Would not present nificant development constraints to potential residential development resulting from the Generai Plan Amendment. moderate shrink/swell potential and moderatepallowah eoilotential im t5resUe sure the j ( j P of .the Project area. soils' the Yina Farwell and Cone o Berrendos assoeiati:ons) could be reduced to insignifieaht levels with implementation of standard engineering design and construction methods: the Loss of rime di.acussed' in Section p Agriculture soils is Policies. Use, Planningy and Applicable Plans and 3.1� Land The Vina Farwell and Conejo Berrenclos soils not possess aw erosion hazard due to t,,1,0 level nature of the Project ect area erosion occurring with disturbance of the Soilsoaat�ldae'be redu dtto related irlsignii"icant ldvel;s with standard erosion control practices: Potential urban' Bevel op1bent on minimum one acre parcels would not involve unusual or extensive grading or soil redistribution; further mitttiaitih9 Potential erosionalimp- utscto. 'The expected grading and soil. redistribution mould simply involve eats for foundations and minor till: for landscape Pur oses. Land Use, Plaanni` r (See Section 3:1, �, Applicable Plans and Pol�.cies; for a disoussian of Potential agricultural impacts, as a result of the proposed project. n ;SPISMICITY. The primary, potential seismic hazard to the project area is r ground shaking. Ast discussed in the Existing Setting, there is a high Probability that the area would continue to experience ground shaking in the fixture, Various intensities of ground shaking have been predicted for the Chico are2t. The intensity of ground shaking would depond on a combination of the type of fault, the distance to the earthquake epicenter, the magnitude of the earthquake, the types of materials between the fault and the area, and the properties and thickness of the foundation materials at the site: Potential ,ground ' shaking impacts to residential development and p ,storm drain or sewer facilites could be reduced by standard engineering design and construction, 1h accordance with the Uniform Building 'Code and the Recommended Lateral Force 1�aictr;1 ''eats prepared by the Structural Engineers Association of California. 'has Potential for liquefaction, a ;process by which water saturated, -� sotiesionless (clay, free) soils lose strength and become 1" earthquake induced g� squid during q ground shaking, is moderate in the site area (Butte County, 1977). As discussed In the Existing Setting, the Chico area has no documented ® history of 13round rupture or p ground failure, including liquefactionliquefaotiobi lateral... spreading, lurching and differential settlement. With the adoption and utilization of standard, appropriate engineering design and construction ® anethods which take J;nto account 611 known seismic information, future residential development in the project area mould be consistent with the Butte County Seismic Safety Element (Butte County, 1977), An no significant seismic hazards would be expected. .'Rydrolow 1ii{AINAGE. Development allowable after approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment would. not alter overall drainage g patterns in the area, but. would - Incrementally increase stormwater runoff generated in the project area: The fsolls, Anderson & Rolls Study identifies one acre parcels as the approximate limit between natural drainage and subsurf2.ee infrastructure. Technioally, if all parcels were equal to or greater than 1.001 acres in size (less 'than one dwelling unit per care), no storm drainage .infrastructure would be required (Edell, 1986).Under this condition, the applicable road' standard would be SRS -1 and no curbs,gutters or sidewalks would be needed'. Natural pereolatian would be utilized to remove stormwat:er from the area. Special ;development requirements should then be implemented to increase percolation on individual sites. If urban standards are applied to this property, the RS -2 roadway' standard would aPP 1yThis standard requires sidewalks, curbs, gutters,and storm drainage ,infrastructure The ,reguired storm drainage ihfrastrueture would' be almost indontical to the infrastructure recommended for the area in the Rolls, Anderson Rolls study despite t e moderate deerQase ih deh it '(Edl1,� 1986). Pp the applicants. Thelicantsor the storm drainage system would be the responsibilityof 171,,0. ODYIfG. The prosect area is not loo ted within th'e 100 year floodplain. Development of the area with impervious surfaces would create a minor increase construthe cted tobunt ocollectfsurface runottj the mihor add enerated from the area. it' store drains unof are . � , banal runoff 'would not in be expected to cause downstream fly. ,ing: if storm, Otaihb are not required with development, minor looalia'� ,.. -ester ponding may continue to occur. 33-6 r De.Yelo pmont of the area would be able to direct any localized stoa�,nlrtat;c�r Ponding away .from `residences and roadways. any to encourage an sate Percolation or detention should reduce this impact to insignificant leo+cls. GROUttUWA'RR. $y the year 2000, groundwater extraction in the Chico area not expected to exceed the rate of reeh.ar e acreage will reduce the quantity of reehagge although lth ughoueduced irrig Xt`ut► re development in the project area i Mould replace of existing vacant paresis with impervious surfaces, which Ftould represent an incremental reduction in g groundwater infiltration (recharge) due to increased surface. runoff. The reduced recharge would not be expected to result in an adverse - impact to groundwater levels due to the limited allowable with one acre parcels. Potential development are addressed in Section sourcesuof waternsurueton pply to fUhrre 3•, Public Ater and Utilities. WATER. QUALITY. Development resulting fror� the p would result in minor increases in urban Proposed General Plan Amendmex,t generated ,by increased vehicular traffic (hydrocarbonsntrubberties ,nironbpr ron), and, from a Iron), d Pplcatian of pesticides and f'ertilzers, Development d hot introduce any new pollutants to area surface watersthatare no}la,tread Present. Overall surface water ualit Y significant. As addressed q Y impacts are not expected to be impacts and associated previously in the soils discussion, adverse erosion water quality impacts from sedimentation are not expected to be signii'iCant. Development resulting from the proP used General Plan AmenclmenL could also ContriBute to water quality degradal;ion through `he release of wastec,€atdx effluent depending on a number of Praetors discus i�he Probability ability thaw the project;Would eontribute�a signif'ieaht�amoantoofver, nare itratesdj the groundwater would be negl[gibie oecause the city and ooiiht' pprovaliofdthe Pe6J6etnAs a resuoPriate meth este disposal o a method for �+ p prior,to It of the tti"brats Action Plan,& Groundwa4er quality, monitor as outlined ,in the to potential grpu Nitrate Action Plan 'should be continued tdndwater quality impacts from on and offsite activities and to ident ify and implement approprjate mitigation. _MITIGAT1011, MEASURES -Geo--IoEX4 ,Residential development of the pro3s�:t area is A following •g i g-bteehnieally Potent al geologic e, th6 and 'tdjfsmieaimon measures ars recommended to reduce Potential pacts to insignificant levels. Specific en� g..neeri,ng de8igh and CbnstpUctioh techniques recommended by g g incorporated, as needed, into the design tesoil sen inner should be _ prbjee;t Building design should comply With seismic requirements of the current Uniform $uilding Code and the Recommended Lateral Force R prepared by the RStrueturai Engineers Aasbeiat�.on of Cal fbrnia��ents withstand earthquake induced ground shad,-b designed to, Pp resi,�st and oun a Son supports and utilities should be 3.3x7 :•u PDBLIG or,", XCES AND UTILITIES AISTIW_G SETTING, Public services services such as water su 1. provided in t'.he project area include and road maintenance. p, sheriff protection, fire � pt. 3 protection education Most uhlic services available to residents of Police patrd areas of the City of �'hico, such as street sweeping and regular Police patro;,ts, .are not provided tc unincorporated areas, such as the project area. The following discussions describe tree primary services ava the North Chico Urban Area. lable in Hater Su,_,,arply Water is supplied to the wells. California his supplied Come project area primarily thl,ough private serves the soutv;aa t side of the project Company withaeightainchte awaterter tility, Cussick Avenue. All of Chico and its unincorporated areas receive water from xells. CWSC is currently looking at the purchase of anew well site near GUM Avenue (Grant, 1985) iTaste+cater Dtsoosal. The Project area is currently sery The nearest sewer again connected by septic 'hg the project area to the Chico Water to tan Pollution Control Plant is located on the north edge of East Avenue: This Y feet, north of East A enue sewer main can: onl serve the area located 600 The r'hico Water Pollution Control Plant is currentl but the unused capacty already has been allocated for pothernareasoofcexa�;cte� growth: The City of Chico and Butti County are currently expected at the treatment plant and nitrate o.ontamination in graundwaters6yn� ire capacity plementing the 'recommendations of'a Nitrate Action Plan which requires Butte, County nd CitYY the Y of Chico to develop a sewer Rae'ter Plan. The existing Nit.rate Action Plan study al�ea is 'bounded by the l mits_of the g g w Gre2ater ChenueUisath_eAr�xistin�north�rn liaaft� �Thetn western limit �.` Flenshaw Av . Sate Route 32, 'to the north to about Mud Creek is alsoPart of strip along The northeastern boundary of the develo part of the Ludy area. is the Southern Pacific Railroad traet,hi hsisipheowresternion fboundaryaf�t.'e Bell Muir property, as defined to thi',i g1R. not Within the Nitrate Action Plan stud area. 'The the Bell Muir area is been characterized as an area of hi Y The Be11 Mui area has hot characterized as an "Area of Concern nitrate contamination, but is �! (Reid, The Master Plan Will include: rds and the area to be served and the standa requirements for sanitary sewerage facilities; the area to bo served by septic tanks, with designation of land use and maximum densities for nongeWered area` and a time schedule for requiring the elimination of septic tanks and ' conneotion to sanitary sewerage systems The N itrPlan that the city Aud county will develop a financingaplan a'by oJanuar indicates It determine the availability of grants or law. interest loans for theextensionnd of sewer) drainage and/or Mater facil;ties to unserved areas to minimize and < Vinancin Plan contamination of the eMindwater. avoid nitrate g The .,ewezage Master plan and g lan have not been completed or approved at this time. financial feasibilit The overall 1985. it should be noted that the 8e1l Muir ro'>' and Caldwell Y `of this Master plan is uncertain arty is outs time (Ttttt�,e '. e plans for ,sower and drainage facilit 0s, A 4666sfrom Supervisor, n Dolan to the Boars of Supervisors outlining Nitrate Action Plan is resei,ted in Append x�15t;jlementation program for the p' 3u•.1 a VVV 7.1 wy4a l i y.rr !rolls, Anderson and Rolls Civil Engineers completed a smaller scale study for Butte County in 1984 which include the project area. A summary graphic of. the Zgo11s, Anderson and Rolls plan is 'presented.in Figure 3.4-1. The cost for a 1yatem to serve the project area and study area was expected to be al,pproxima`ely $4.6 million in 1984. The option to eliminate service to the project area; defined in the study as the "Bell Road Area" (-740 acres) would Saye saved approximately $225,000 in 1984. iVAyment of three fees would be required to obtain a connection to the city sewage collection and treatment system: (1) a water pollution control plant root (2) a trunk line capacity fee, and (3) a main line extension fee: The ates may vary between residential and nonresidential areas 'and fees may bange according to implementation of the Sewer Master :Plan. In order to evoneet to the ci'tyts water )?ollution control plant, the project area must be annoxed to the City of Chico,, or affected property owners would be required to nannexation agreement'; waives the right to tmh(Reidex'986On oppose futureannexation act�Lons > Nunez, 1986). Corm DrainA 0. There are no storm drains in the project. area. Butte County storm drains on logs with a gross area of one acre or less. Water requires easily percolates into, the sandy loam soil in the project area and runoff has g._ p area is not within a 100 year dot caused significant flooding. The reject ar floodplain, Accordingto the National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA, 1971). 'The cost of storm drain infrastructure generally is paid by either the propeety owner or the developer (3delly 1980. S<inee storm water runoff has been listed along wita septic tanksasbeing the bDst contributory and the most, controllable sources of nitrates, the Nitrate kation Plan has required a sewerage plan and a storm drainage plan for the greater Chico Urban A)--h. The drainage plan will include: the standards for -he eliminatiorr of all of the existing off site drainage wells, standards for the installation of temporary drainajge facilities air: leachfelds and a _ ---- .financing plan for construction oi' news drainage facilities. In 1955, a: Stora Drainage Study, was prepared for the North .Chico Area by Rolls, Anderson and Rolls. This ,study included 1,338 acrts of land in the northwestern portion of the Chico Urban Area. The study;carea -included the project area and provided,a description of specific projects and related costs. The storm drainage improvements proposed within the project vicinity ardahown in Figure 3.4-2. The costs for these impPovements and others identified in the study exceed ' $91000,000. The drainaitt plait will be compatible faith the Rolls; Anderson and, Rolls plan; but will not supersede; it The Storm Drainage Master Plan study is currently in progress. police Services, The Butte County Sheriffts Department ,proV dob police service for uninoorporated areas of Butte County. Tian deputy sheriffs ;serve the northern half of Butte County (approximately 800 square miles), using a beatpatrol system. The neaeobt station is 'four :to five miles from the project area at 475 E. Park Avenue and Highway 99: The average response time to the project area depends upph the priority of the service calla it called fora 'life and (loath emergency) response time could be "less than five minutes. A nonurgent call could take Wi long as three or more hours, The county shdeiffis department is "severely" understaffed,'With only two patrol officers ' at any given time serving 65,000 people. For minimum staffing, the Butte County Shbeiff,ts Department would need to have 60 patrol officers based on a 3�-2_ r r ?. •tf; a , +�• '••• tip' ¢�¢ • � r`,! i� .�,,`` i' •y�rt,� j}1 ff1 �t�¢ ���{ Y �•`*�+ • b+se. .:♦ r � . 44/ 01 IV MIL • r • i r y i i� Iq .„G „ i • ,may .�4 #,Y , ''r�+( �� � � d4� ,� •' �• ,r., ;, i rig'•:” t wf d i �i1�, its •"� •' •• Y . iA !y$ } L Zai i4�.iY 7 te v at • r / J '� „ i j/i � a 8 �j aY '•• � 5 � G• p i . • 1 •' "r phi ! r-� � ' ' O is .� "'• Y i� • ,> . � •�,("f� f ..tom-,�� '`• i � 1' .- /"_{' .4 w � � ' C H i / Cj , �i !s 41 i ••.• i • • � � .a '•r yn G'j ti ' ° , � r1G • ° l ;r. • _ e _ eS re rr �. aT it 1> Y et r . p x., • y a tt■f �,.. •�ol . G OF rw Fri �,. •• i 110 " 1 ,wee•-. a;, .r. �' "✓",, 'gyp � 'W � `,. � . ; +: M , �„ ;� ,.� r•' K Y •,. ,:.••*PROJECT AREA DELL RUlk AREA) r -•- .. • _ `' SELL ROAD AREA TREATMENT PLANT 3�YR .` .. •°••'•°ROLLS A"t"ON ROLLS StIlD " ARRA >b =AREA ARRA REQUIRES MY,\ 'r ` �:r Wo r .. . "-� °�.o."' � .,.�,�, . . � ,.�-x"'T'�2Ut31� ,INE •.cc•.•r 1 ' SCALE r FIGURE 3:441 POi'ENTIAL $E�+tER EXTENSION PLAN 30010 l • m r I standard of one deputy per l pOO population. Presently, Butte County Sheriffs Department has only 21 offilr ,,Os (Grey,, 1986) T , - department . , he sherii.f s p ment has a mutual aid agreement with the City of Chico Police Department and the California Highway Patrol, (Grey, 1986). Future service explansions are anticipated if appropriate funding is made available. Fire Protection. The Butte County Fire Department is responsible floc fire protection within unincorporated—areas of Butte County, Station 42 at Frontier Circle and Cohasset Road Serves the project area, The department operates with one paid firefighter per station in the fainter and an additional Paid -� volunteerffiefightersin ewho areradio dispatched . The tty Fire Department also has _ to assist paid perscnnel. 'lhe �.Chioo ar,4a has approximately 40 volunteers. Station 42 stations in is one of the twelve "paidn the county, The service area of Station 142 has an Ibsurance Service Office (ISO) rating of Class 5 when within 1,000 fc�e of a fire hydrant and Class 9 beyond 10000 feet. Fire department service levels nationally are rated on a scaleof 1 to 70 ,(best to worst) in an effort to determi a the cost of fire insurance for y y prop ert owners. An area not having :fire hydrants is automatically ratted a;9 i on the scale. If the fire department can provide a Water tender, that ;classification Could be reduced to an 8: ' 'The County fire 'department is currently unable to serve the project area because of the lack of fire hydrants in the area. A new fire' station; eadequately meeting fire protection standards No. 4 � 3), is planned near the Project area at the ilitersection of East Avenue and State Route 82. The new zervice area is called the 'lest Chico Fire Station Benefit Area and a taitigation fee of 75 dollar sper parcel collected frim new parcel diviisons to help support the cost of the new fire station. This station is estimated to cast X400,000, with personnel Costs.of_approximatel mi.nutesy(HAfesps 1986 • T i $140;000_ to ree'to 600 annuall Res once time to the project area is estimated to be three 1.o five , Tiller, 1986) lti:hools. The Chico Unified School. District serves the City 5f Chico aril its unincorporated areas. The school district has 11 medium sized elementary schools and three small rural sehoals offering kindergarten through sixth grade education. The school district employs 400 teachers, 250 staff persons', 04 55 administrative or 'Certified nonteaching personnel (Greater Chico Chamber of 'Commerce, 1986). The district also operates; two junior high aclyools and two high schools: These four schools are ourrently oReratitig below planned capacity; however, several elementary schools are Currently operating above planned capacity. Relocatables (movable: classrooms) are used` throughout the district 'at elementary schools and it is anticipated that 60 prlocatables will be used in the next five years to help inset the demand ,for ima, aC y education (Matth©ws, 1986): Forecasts of future.-enrol),ment cannot be pr eommodated by projected capacities At existing elementary school. sites (M'Athews,, 1986): The City of Chico and Butte County have adopted Ordinances t,s generate revenue' to meet future, school demands. The fees are based on the number of rocks ,in nett developments (see A p ppendix' 16.1.0). The Chico Unified, School District has Adopted an ordinance to' .projected dbmand'. the county Board of 5upervisdrs ,has recentlyincreased :the fees. � y 44' a , Real Dow'Elementary School serves the 'Project area and Ito location approximately three mstudents are bused to iles wa.. ay on east 5th Avenue: Neal Dow currently has 1111 students enrolled and has a ca acct of 485 students. Bidwell Junior High School serves the project area and capacity 839 students and a capacity of 11170. Bidwell is locatedPresenaty has a total Vard Avenue a pproxmately three miles from the Sunset and. �nhool, located at Lincoln and 'West Esplanade Driveject area. Chico High Wiles from the $ is approximately two hAPWil not projeot area. With an enrollment of 1,103, Chico High School Yet reached its planned capacity of 1,693 APO planned in the Chico area and one school isbei g cons. Future schools being considered in he pwoject area, but land has not' et been purchased (Mathews, 1986). {ether schools that y serve the Chico area and Butte County are Butte Community College and California State University, ,Chico. Rdad strdeMaiitrenance. Butte Count maintains the roads in the projeot area. County Th e project area are in need of widening and upgrading, but at this tithe they are considered adequate to meet existing demand. The county will - �, maintain roads built. Within a subdivision if t standards; County road maintenance is funded by roads are built t( county 1986). gasoline tax (Edell, Libraries. The Butte County Library at East 1st Avenue in 'Chico serves all of the Chico area. The recently ecnstrueted Butte County Library is housed Ina ®® building designed to accommodate expected local housin 2000- Fui;is to support the te year library come mainly from thegButte ountyhCeneral, Fund. Sorvices such as the library have been adversely affected by recent. budg„t cuts. Currently; the library is uhderstoeked and understaffed with opera-1bg hours reduced from past years (Terry, 1986); Fiosoitalsi__Two hospitals currentl . serve the Chico area. Enloe Hospit privately operated nonprofit facility located at 5th A_ve,jue and Esplanade, iia iithin five miles of the project area. Enloe i#ospital has a beds and is used close to capacity (estimated at 0 PProx mately 920 .The,second hospital serving the Chico area ed At 90 percent)ly (C lard6t 1986). Community Hospital, also located within five miles of tete project area. This, hospital has approximately 85 beds and currently is not used to (estimated at 60 percent oil lower) (Calarco, 1986). ,capacity Parks and Recreation. City maintained Bidwell Park serves the City of Chico and its unincorporated areas. Bidwell Park covers over 2;400 acres 'and y, center of the ci'tyi extends from California State Ohiversit Chico Ps the Bidwell River Park is west of Chico o the east into the foothills. Past Bidwell Mansions and on for �.eh Wiles t P along the Sacramento }?aver and consists of 1$0 acres o' Unim`roved 'stat owned and maintaindd'land (Greater Chico 'Chamber of CommOvde 1986,)' located southeast of dountowrk earbibtpiet (CARb) operates ;a dbmmunit Chico Area Recreation and Pa �� Park. n near state Route 99 and 20th Street and the Chapman Center located at 16th and B Streets. been designated as recreation areas. All elementary schools have (� located' Southgate, off State Route 99e East Side Little League Park is �I All, redeeatj” areas Ape heavily used at this time OHughes, 19800. Butte County it currently Writih a Natural Resaurres And Recreatioi Element to be added to it's General Plan. 1l ; di-eussiofi of park dedication ,requ cements and in lieu fees will ownbe presented,` in the document (Bre '1986). 466 1 G VACTS The proposed project would increase the demand'for.publie services and utilities. This increased demand would be difficult to serve due to the ovkward and illogical pattern of parcels involved in the proposed project, particularly with 'respe'ct to water, sewer and storm drainage f"ailitiet. The ftiilowing discussions describe the impacts of the project on the provision of p,pblic services and utility availability. _'#tR, er Supply. Development allowed under the ,proposed project would require up to86,400 gallons of Water per day, assuming 270 additional dwelling units :and h. demand of 820 gallonq per day per unit (Earth Metrics Incorporated, 1986)., 7110 California 'Water Services Company (CWSC) anticipates .no difficulty in ,providing water for this additional growth in the project area. However, the aXpansion of water service would require the drilling of ona additional well. 6i40er from the additional well would continue to meet the standards of the Y;,trate Action Plan (Grant, 1986). Residents of the project area may choose to drill their own wells, which would reduce the demand for water services r?om the CWSG (Grant, 1985).' However, a complete water system for fire protection would be required for site development (see Fire Protection Sfi+er Wast6�idter Disposal and the Nitrate Action Plan. An estimated 77,760 ,gallons per day of sewage would be generated from the 276,new residences allowed by the proposed project (90 percent of projected wate;- use). Methods for disposal of this sewage have not been proposed by the applicants. The use; of septic tanks or sewers depends on data related to the Nitrate Action plan. A package treatment facility is not a practical alternative in the area due to land area requirements, regulatory constraints and costs (Reid, 1986): 'The following discussion: addresses the impacts of the proposed project on the/, fsitrate Action Plan s a function of sewage dispasal options. The proposed General Plan Amendment would require a revision to the'-Nitrate 'Action 'Plan Study Area Map. The required map amendment would not be considered a, significant impact because the new boundaries would form a' 'logical limit to the study .area and because significant 'policy changes or program amendments would not be required since "Areas of ,Concern" are already, included within the study area (Reid, 1987. If permanent septic tanks are selected as the "sewage treatment: method, a land use density (dwelling units per acre) requirement will have to be determined. The most frequently' discussed density is one dwelling unit per acre. This is the density requested by the project applicants. The Regional, Quality Coai.rol Board may not object to this density. However, the Butte County Health Department could not make a finding that all of the data heeded to makQ the,; density decision is or is not available at this time (Reid, 9987). The stays Department of heater Resources indicated that groundwater samplea froom new wells representative of Chase to. be tapped byresidents in the project area and those wells which are or will be tapped in the vicinity would probably be- needed to support a; specific denbity standard for the Bell Auer property. in addition; the Water ttesotrce DBpartment stated that, the threshold of acceptability 'would; be rather `subjective°because various geologists and engineers may interpret the data differently (Steel, 1987). Therefore; the density decision must be ''made prior .to approval of the proposed project or beallowedthat bytheicountyinconsistent Nitrate Action Plan could withproject approvalobjec.ves development { �t rl i� If the Bell Muir property is�_connected .to the sewer system after septic tanks have been installedc it a initially or:later, would not conflict with the Nitrate Action planarsAlthouthe proposed density been established to complete sewer oonneetions to areas allowed. to this density. If the project is eorinectei to the Sewer gh no time limits- have would require that the system be compatible with the Brown and Caldwell sewer system,, the city study. A; source of funds to make the npcessar Caldwell plan has not been identified., Y amendments to the Brown and The density decision is ultimately the responsibility of Butte Co should be .made prior to thea P County and it , i approval -t the proposed General Plan Amendment if permanent sewers are: proposed. The decision should be With any requirements established by the Regional Hatermade in concurrence (Reid, 1987) Quality Control Board A.,future connection of the project site to, the Chico Water"Pollution Control Plant would involve a costly new extension of a trunk line from the Chico Water Pollution Control Plant to and expansionproject area throughout the projet of the treatment plant. , said fees fee The new trunk line would be expected r41 accommodate a much larger' the project. area because it i, hi 1 g r area than itself y gh Y 'unlikely that the proposed project, by ,would ustif such an extension. system extension to the Project A. representative proposal for sewer for Sanitar� Sewer Service to therNorth ChicoidentiArea fied i- the Feasibility Studv Anderson, Rolls (see Figure 3.4-j). , 984 prepared by Rolls, designed to serve the Bell Muir Area„'he Brown and Caldwell plan has not been Storm Draina e. increase imperviauswsurface area 'fromresidential �nuildi in the project area, Would i ng. and roadways, which would - t for a disousa mwater runoff see 5eeton salt in a caries ondin ihcreasE in stor on of drainage mpaots). 3 3, Police Services. The proposed project mould add to the demand for Butt” County Sheriff's Department services and would require staff or' vehi added to the department cle-6 to The incremental requirement Would he 0.65 deputies e based on the standard of one, de ut y 'Per 'costs for this Addition of services Would be tofp$28fi600asaociated (Grey, '1 86 per 9 ) However, 'further increases In staff and vehicles Wouldebe required tc �ti ate g project impacts because the incremental fee would "not be directed to the project site. Service levels would be °tsevereM with or p` j Protection. case of r police without the fee bee e3sting and ro eeted demands fo Fire Protection. The Proposed project Mould inoreaso the demand for fare protection services in the project area. project area reduces the a P"J The lackbltet, of fire hydrants in the' Department. Butte County Fire Departmenta�ould3t+egt�ir�htheutte County Fire r pressurized water system consistent With 1enucity n. fire of an fire station (No. 43) is planned for a site near, . A new cftp d in two to three - the project area and could bo need to be fully staffed to aeoomModatettheoreased demand for fire Immediately,This station would, Protection services, in addition Compo 4{P interim:. -tot�ld need Pxpahsion in the area would be rive to ten individuals. ` The number of additional 'volunteers needed to protea the Project area also could r Cumulative development in the Chico egaire increases in staff: and equipment .n the future (EisWkins)198; Tiller► 1986). 3.-4-8 Schools. The proposed project could generate 0.43 students dwelling unit, resulting in an increase of 116 s(grades ry, ,9 per 'Neal D s (63 elementary, 27 ,junior high, 26 senior high) (Mathews,.. 1986). Neal Aoy Elementary Schoal, which would serve the prajeot area, is currently at 84 �tnd is expected to reach rapacity in the next percent of its capacity 6chool; is resentl at 1 year. Bidwell Junior High P Y 7 percent of its planned capacity and it is al)ticipate.d that the school can meet the projected growth. Chico Senior High oahool currently is used to 68 percent of its planned capacity and is expected to be able to accommodate the additional residential growth in its enrollment area. The increased number of students generated by the proposed project, thOPefore, is likely to significantly affect Heal Dow School, but, is not likely to significantly, affect Bidwell Junior High School or Chico High School (144thews, 1986) . The proposed project would have a cumulative impact on schools in Chico and its unincorporated areas. As discussedunder the Existih8 Setting, school district 4:1tcipates the use of 60 relocatables to accommodate the future growth within the next ;"five year--.. The district is also examining the potential for new.sehools to accommodate growth.(MatheWs, 1986). Road Maintenance and Hospital Services. Development allowed under the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand tori road maintenance and hospital: services. These impacts would not be considered individually or cumulatively sign!Z1aant due to the relatively low increase in service demand. expected by these services (Edell„ Calareo, 1986); Libraries. D6velopment allowed under the proposed project would incrementallyincrease the demand for library services which are already operating below .adequate service levels (understoeked, understaffed reduced This incremental, impact is cumulatively,' ;operating hours} funding_souree is -support:significant• formation of__;a special..- the- library system could'be considered double taxation becaus6 the library system is supposed to be free, according to the State Attorney General (Terry, 1986), Therefore, this impact is only kitigable through budget decisions made by Butte County. Arks cl Reereatioh. J?evelopment ,under the propased project WdUld inortmentally increase the demand f or Parks and recreation sery e e project related incremental :impact wpaould riot be consde ed i es. Although P j idered sigh.ftcant, the cumulatiVt increases in demand for s and recreation Would be g dd to the need for new recreation considered si nificant and would a .facilities. Future programs .associated with the Quimby Act or related fund,n mechanisms may mitigate impacts of development in future if they are approved. Atthistime, the cumulative impacts an parks and recreation facilities are unmitigable, 1�IiT. tGA'PrOtd MEASURES, The following measures are recommended to mitigate adverse public sehv ud impacts identified in this s>etionx 'the 4�ater Services A minimum of one new Well and a pressurized water system will, be re4uired in the ro.eat area as a "result of site develo p. � pment. All. cal Water requirements shall be mdt•1 The required well: and water system - Will cost approximately $?i5,000: 3;4-y y ,y l,f Wastewater Dis�cisal and Nitrate Contamination M If septic tanks Were to be; utilized permanently on the project site the City of Chico and Butte Count r allowable density of developmentY should make a formal decision on ;the that could occur on the Bell Muir Property- without adversely ° affecti ng potential nitrate contamination. The density of the development Allowable on the site should con#'orm to this decision. The data 'required to make this determination should Ge defined by the Regional Water.Quality Control Board. The required data will probably include groundwater samples 'and other data from new and existing wells in the project vicinity. If t11e density decision indicates that the proposed density i3 too high, pP g P q the project could be a roved contingent u on.the requirement that a hookup be installed within a time county. This contingent a Period defined by the city And sewer engf r:eering and finasoing the should. not were approved, q pP by the city, and county and the time frame would prevent adver,;e impacts r on in to groundwater contamination ■' the ,area by 'nits ates: . - I#' sewer lines were to be connPeted to the project area, the Bounty could approve the proposed General plan Amendment and allow development contingent upon a serer hookaEngineering future system would have to be+approvedbythenCitynandicounty the county prior to o a.�s P system was feasible. any devplo went t are that the See Section �,, , Geology/flydrology.. F'oliee Services Butte County should consider cumulative demands for I liceces' And, develop an appropriate funding mechanism such as an as P0 to naiutain future level of service standards in the fa2tar��� (The feasibility of this mitigation measure is quastiohab7,e because efforts by the county to raise revenues for this purpose have been y dented b " voters., Butte County should Consider requiring developers of the project area to Pay for the incremental impact (2$,6Qb per year) on, Police servi...es created by the proposed Geheral Flan amendment. Fire protection .Services' Butte do urAY will collect 15 dollars per new parcel in the West Chico Aire Station Benefit Area to acgWro funds to build a new fire station _.._ to serve, the project area► Butte County should seek additional vdluhteers to staff Station 4z until Station 43 is n erational. r ixed'waters stem should be p' es sur. bd in ' Inst conform to the Butte County Fire bepartaentlrequtremeuts�(sat area to Services for ousts 3.4-10 : c 4. ALTERNATZVE.0 Two alternatives to thero osed p p 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 pacts discussed in Section 3 of this p P project im ;report. .i NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE The No Project Alternative involves maintaining the project site=s existing Gbnoral Plan. Land Use. Only a limited, amount of future development (less than 20 reniderce,$) could be added in the project area as a result of this ajt,oOnative. No variation cf the Chico.Area �,Ireenline-would occur. Under this tamost of t hartsfthe pp rojectwoudnotoccur,wouldbesubstantallyedueedorwouldbedela delayed. The 110 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 sGreenline. 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 impacto,j such as the Eaton Road Extension; development along State ;Route 32 and increasing urba,. 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 following discussion summarizes impacts of the No Project Alternative .by issue. LAND USE P `. CANNING APPLI CABLE PLANS.AND P OLICIES: The No Project Alternative titould maintain existing urban/agricultural land use conflicts in the project area, but would not 3norease thea aoni'lio s or subject new or larger parcels, beyondthe project area to the west; to adverse land use conditions. The demAnd for residential land for development would be shifted to properties turrently within the Chico Area Greenline, which is consistent with city and:, "county planning policies. The growth inducing imp,%kctT of the General Plan ,Amendment and relocation of the Chico Area Greenline would bo avoided. Benefioial housing supply lapaets would be lost. i TRAPPfdi Additional traffic arould be generated by only about 20 residential � Uould not be expected to aigrlifieantly �fecprope roadway system in theproject. This tral`fic units rather than the 0 allowed under the t the roadway project area, .GEOLOGY/HYDROLOGY Potential soil and seismic impacts wouldbe minimized with U6 No Project Alterhative. Stornniater runoff and infiltration anal urban pollutant levels would be less than with the proposed Project. Storm drainage 'i rastructul.,y 146uld not be needed to aceommo.date projected runoff. PUALIC _SE.►,4 C 91OW IfIES, impacts related to additional dembaid for u _ . r public services from new residents would be minimized, Water, demand Would not requii% a new Well or A pressurized water system. The feasibility of and heed for a sbwer extension into thie project Brea Would be reduced.. The itacre�tental demand for police and fire services would be lhsignifioant. Impacts on the school district,road maintenance, libraries] pars and recreation facilities would be reduced to ijas gnifioant levels. i a t ..2 4 EXPANDED PROJECT AREA ALTERkATIVE The Expanded Project Area Alter+native Would involve a Ge including all of the parcels within the 430 acre area al Plan Amendment 1.1-3. This alternative also would delineated in Figure allowing approximatel Provide 'or one ,acre minimum Under the proposed ely'3 Project).new residences in the area 80 Parcel sized, of the environmental impacts identifisdsfolternative more residences than the significance of most increased as a result of the 80 additionalrrthe ProposedProject alternative {beyond the 27h new residences res 'by would be allowed by this The follows owed by the proposed ng, discussion clarifies the differences between the impact ed tthe Proposed project and this alternative. In si .Alternative would generate slightly ammary the Expanded Project Area. than the Proposed y 8reatez inc Ary cumulative impacts P Project and would be more logical and cost. effective due). the uniform development density._ for the required and recommended mitigation for�ar summarizes the approximate project cost [, ded Prajeet area LAND USE PLANNING APPLICABLE PLANS Alternative would allow for' POLICIES. The Expanded Project Brea. urban and agricultural uses by �allowingttheal land removaluof compatibility between Predominant use of the project area. The agricultural as the would be considered more logical arld stableathannderheusroesignations However, the expanded deve�.opment P posed Potential would further disrupt thereityts, and eountyis intention to guide development from prune agricultural lands. BenefiemialthousinOther Areas in Chico and assay Increased with the potPhtial fora g Supply impacts wo additional units.... uld be TRAFFZ_ C AkD CIRCULATI011. The creased Project Area Alternative would- thedeyesipninie�tental of the 'Expanders Peak trips generated by the 8 anee of the incremehtea and hour tris proposed project. fihe total number of daily mpact of P generated would be 3,500 and to mitigate impacts and related fundi;ig for real 3t5i3n resPectivel intersections would become more important and urgent y' Measures � 8 ur'aconventional GEOLOGY AND HYDROLOGYSoils and seismic ;impacts would not be subs different with a nigher number of units at tantialely unit/aere� As compared to the an equivalent density (one more ,impervious surfaces (noedast)Posed project, this alternative would add Pollutants to local waters. -ng runoff) Hoxeith these: impacts) ould�,notibe substantially butd more urban .different than those .associated'iiith '.the ro )sed antialy P P project, PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES. The 80 additional residential unj�s utsits) allowable under the Expanded Project Area Alternative would increa (35d total, the demand for public services rdent over fihe proposed in tbP project area by approximatel se Project. However, the provision of 'public services Would be Water use and waster�ater generat P more logibal with, this alternative due to the uniform develo'ment densWou approximately 112,0110. Son would incr��ase� Hater demand Mould be gallons per day and woul(J increase tho probabilitji�' that a second hell would be needed on 'the site. waritetiater 'voltuistls wotl].d be would be ex appro�cimatel 100 $�0 , pecked: Which would add day. ' A total, of approzimat.el '1 8 11f.'nn p,0 to existin and y �a0 sttl4 9emts q The demand for B ' projected is ipaej,ty hade�uaeies pol ice services, ,fire protoctioh services, �. PF1r�J 4­2 a t ,and r`eereation. facilities, and rand maintenance would inorease. ,proportionately. The mitigation measures identified for the proposed project Mould also apply 'to this alternative (see Section 3.,4, Appendix 16. 10', and Ta.41 e 2.1-1 �1 1 risr' if j SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFE �• _ CTS .WHICH. CANNOT BE AVOIDED _IF .:THE... +' PROJECT_ IS IMPLEMENTED 600tion 3 of this EIR identifies the environmental effects of the proposed project. Table 2.1-1 summarizes these impacts and clarifies; the significance j of,each. h. impact many with and. without implementation of the recommended mitigation' t�f, e y cases, the recommended mitigation measures can be Incorporated into the project to minimize impacts to insignificant levels. T110 follows ng project related: cumulative impacts may notbe reduced to Inaigni;ficant levels after mitigations 1 - The proposed project would encourage the development of approximately' 270 new dwelling units in an area. of prime agricultural land. Loss of ..this agricul!;tural.,land would represent a 0.375 percent-decrease in. the -:.. total amount of county land used ,for fruit and nut production. This incremental loss and other incremental losses would be :considered a significant cumulative :impact at the re;eional state and national level.' The proposed project would increase the frequency ,and magnitude of adverse land use compatibility impacts Withricultural activities to ag i the north and west due to anticipated,development in the project area, the illogical pattern of land uses subject to the General Plan Amendment and the illogical formation of the Greenline, - The proposed project would impact areawde traffic conditions where funding for future improvements is not certain. The project would increase existing conflicts between bicycles, p s along East Avenue.- pedestrians 'and motor vehicles - The proposed project would increase the demand for police services. �. Even though, the 98,'600 fee would mitigate the projects, incremental imacs, the 'Co p g un.tl Sheriff-Is department would still be understaffed. to -_ - serve the county. - The proposed project Would indirectly allow additional "sewage to. be generated in theL project areas The sewage treatment method has not been proposed by the project app"dants. Septic tanks be sewers may be possible, but a determination of the appropriate method for waste disposal cannot be made until police i,arification5,,related to the Nitrate Action Plan and sewerage have been made by the City of Chico and Butte County The project 'would inoreasethe demand for library, services in Butte, County. Formatioh of a special funding; source to support the library system could be considered double taxation becausethelibrary system is supposed to be free acebeding to the State Attorney General (Terry, 1986) Butte County Must provide ;appropriate library tund:ng to ' mitigate this impact. The project would increase the demand for parks and recreation facili,tieso Butte County must adopt a funding program to mitigate, this :impact. 5-1 ,f I. Omni pp Y 2 N )m moi. . According to the California Environmental Quality Act, a project is considered to be growth inducing if the project could directly -Dr indire.otly foster economic growth or population growth. Extensions of urban services or transportation facilities into previously unserved or underserved areas, and other Projectswhichremove obstacles to growth or generate substantial economic or employment activity be would considered $;E-owth inducing:, 1 The proposed .project would indirectly foster econom ;; growth and population growth in the Chico area.in several ways: (1) b increasing allow OP to 270 new residences to be developed in the y g density P project area; (2) am by amending J;he Chico Area.0 eenline to remove a constraint to land development in prime. +48ricultural areas; (3) by reducing, the city's and eounty"s commitment to encouraging development in other areas of the city; __O by encouraging the City of Chico to extend urban services into a previously unserved area; and (5) by providing short term construction employment and business activity 141, th installaO r, of infrastructure and construction of new residences, Increased developtaent density would be growth lvd4ting 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, Modification of the Greenline could be an indicator that the existing constraints on development created by the Greenline and efforts to direct development in other areas are not f].rm city%COl2IIty COmmitments, whi.eh'would encourage owners of similarly situalced property to generate pressure on decision makers to amend the Gre6nline. Extension of urban .servicesthrow h-Anfrastrueture improvements g and extensions of urban service boundaries (annexa;ion) is clearly growth inducing since. similarly situated properties would become more viable for urban uses. %' y invited` to. businesses and Workers already established in the Chico area. The growth - inducing impacts of the project would be considered si nifiaan .' B t, Cumulative impacts are impacts 'Which are individually or incrementally minor,, but which, when i:ombined with impacts associated with approved Pe r past and present projects and other reasonable antics tr,-d future projects, accumulate too .more substantial proportions. The Cali'forni`a Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) states that cumulative .impacts shall be discussed when they are ignificant, and that the discussions shall describe t o he severity of the impacts and the likelihood of their occurrence. CEQA alae states that the ditrcussion does not deed to Provide as great detail as is' Project alone. The discussion is to be provided for the practicality and reasonableness, guided by the standards of The Draft EIR discusses cumulative impactsbyutilizing the Chico Area TrFt po tion Study (CATS) which is an adopted planning document Pertainin t ns re nt of the Chico Urban Area and b B .o future development as a percent of total growth both in the y analysis of tae project Project vicinity and general area, The basis from which the (CATS) contemplate development Projections are :maria are two scezrarios which Pm by �e year 2000 and development by buildout of the, Chico General ,Plan. Land Use Mal). The CATS study is incorporated by reference in Section 3.2 of thisre ort, P The analysis of cumulative impacts as a Percent of projected growth is presented as follows, The proposed Genera] Plan Amendment and subsequent development of residential uses in the project area could result in the development; of up to 270 additional dwelliaig units and approximately 648 persons livingin the ro'ec (.4 persons ' Per dwelling unit).. The addition of 648 p Q t area 2 Project area (Traffic Zone ,30 in the CATS) would. exceed the population to the Projected in the CATS for this a.^ea b a Population �000 and y .p Proximately 3j percent for the *ear, this tone t'.epresent a six fold increase in the number -of � , - People .adda.d in the year 2000 '(648 vs. 106). The proposed project would, represent approximately 47 percent of the total number of dwelling units and approximately t5 percent of the, projected number of vehicle tripswhich ai-e: reasonably anticipated in the project area (see Appendix t6 M . The total Droject�related 'population growth would ;present ap roximatel of the Lowest projected total Population P y 0.86 percent growth anticipatOd with buildout of Use ,hlap the Chico General: Flan Land. The ProjeeOs share of cunaul'ativit yr , se�rvi�:es demand impacts would be trP f set air gi;alit noise, and. public population to its increase ed population y P j - ' �rf:mentilro ortition groKth is expected to occur growth,. The. ro act s inL gradually in the future, Miti ation measures for the 1� g significant eumiilative impacts are presented In Section 3+ CBQA states that Mitigation measures for cumulative impacts may ,involve only` adoption of ordnaneEs or regulations rather than the impositioins of conditions un a Project by project b&sis The following auin'ulative .j_Lipaots are discussed in Section 3, of the Draft EIiZ. + Loss ofpririte agrau�airal Z find to iir•bar1 development acid additional adverse LII use compatibility, impacts, 7"1 ' 1 t . LIST OF COMMENTS ,HE DRAFT EIR The following persons and aBetiCies made comments on the Draft EIR during the Public Review period. The co mimeats the are presented in chronological order with most Tecent comments first. However, the minutes of the Public 'Hearing pre :b Presented last. A. Ohanian,;John .B., Chief Deputy Director, State Office Of Planning and Research;, May 23, 1986: Bryant, tennis J.y Environmental o Program Coordinator, State Department of Conservation, Office of the "Director, 'May 19: 1986. C. Cussick Area Neighborhood Council, May 16, 1986. D. Louden Jetfrey M., Chef, EnvironmentalbranchD Transpc� tation,. MAY 9,1986. , Department of E, Thompson, Robin` G: 'Busine;�s Maria er/Co u pteoller, Chico Unified Sohoaj.District Play- 2i 1986. F. Department of Public Works, Butte Conty, April 8, 1986.' G. s 8 yGeneral Marag, April3,J1986, er Chico Area Recreation and Park Distriut, H. i Tuttle, Laura,Associate Pla neer, Butte County Planning Department, June. 1 I • Tuttle Laura Associate Plannwtp Butte County PI anhing Department, su=ar; of comments made on EIR during public hearings and other comments made during the comment period, December 1.6, 1986„ l , l -1 , i .. 0! Bryant Dennis J. En'vi:ronmental Pr6]gram Coordinator THE, RESJtJRCtS AGENCY OF CAtfiO, Nlti ,_ State Department of Conservations Ofi`ice_ of, the Director May 19 1986. , iT j Dr. Gordon F. Snow bow : MAY 19 1986, Assistant Secretary for Resources su5ied his. Laura Tuttle Draft EnVironntental County of Butte Impact Deport, Bell ,CoCounty Center X5965 Drive Muir GTPA #84-45; 7 i C SCH 84061909 x t)e pmtlrrienf of Consprvotion­-Office of she Director The Department of Conservation is responsible for monitoring farmland eo,nr ers ion on a statcw1de basis, The Department a)'so admini s icrs the. C;YJif0rn,ia Land Conservation (Williamson.) Act 11?.e have reviewed Buttc County's Draft Environrncntal 'impact Report (DEIR.) for the project refer ra ed above_ and have noted that the proposal woolli involve the conversion Of, prime agricultural land, The Department, therefore, Or the fol lay ing comments. Tht,, proposal would in"I"'c approximately 400 acres of agricultural land +ti•h ch is currently outside t'he Chico Grcenlinc (urban development' ho �ndarr), Jt proposes the extension of the , t,recnitne to include the int developmci t area, and the convCTS'a' rrr`ect .arca ��°tth;tn the cunt, r ai prr�ximately 27t) or acres of land to 270 ]-acre homesites It is not nrlcar fronj the DEER what additional agricultural land cbn�crsion may result tts a I� srcc�ndary Impart of the project. - The D>»'ll: ;nates (page 3.1•l) that there are a number of ci;onornic factors «hie qucstiofn ct the mabiljty- of agricultural operat.ions in the pro}ect arca, b ..2 We phasis on i'he neS art i�c �economics of apciations in the absence oC l more gUantitat jVC agriculturaf and gvalitata��e detail o ' th, ctonomics of -current a ric`ul urtll production. plrojcctw�inulid cunxagnyify 't.'3 and tr;�hsfer Problems related elated to, huisance to adjacent agr Guttural land tih S, ILA We rccommcri'd that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIA) address the ` n impact by including the tollo�i�ng issue of ton -term farmland conversion information, A o Th c, agricultural character of the area dovcred 'b the Y project and �f ,nearby or surrounding lands which may be affected by the eon�ie`r;gion Arocess. Types and relative y:.clds of crept grown. Availability and quality of irriga ion water,, 0 Fat n'!And CO iverslbn Impacts - 1. resu'l't to nearby ,. and y areas from implementation o if any - that: 'u.�ou7d Y1~ farts The _ � C land convctsiatt f the chiding potential errs , .. projtcc, "n- p yields that �ou1d'bc lost. The, propottion of` the Comity's total t�pudT( axr this tong vcrsibn Would rcprestnt,, ►�,i� li t it.y el I.2--4 MAY '19 1,986, May 16, 1986. Qi"o+�lo'� C.�lifr►ra4 To, Butte County Pannng Depart meet Att+n. Msi Laura Tuttle 'From: Cussick Are: Neighborhood Council Subject: Questions and Comment Re: Bell-Muir Ernrironmental: Impact Report: The Council is pleasedto have the opportunity to transmit its reactions to the draft EIR whose conclusions would have definite impacts on our primary area of concern. EIP, Fuge _Number, Comment ACL 2- We strongly concur with it he mitigation pro- i posed for narrow, sub-standard' roads, 2-6 We agree with Mitigation measures proposed with r,espoct to the Western extension of Eaton Road. We suggest that access to the proposed e}:tension the south should be limited to ,.from one point, e.g., Rodeo or Cuyhn to prov,ide ser- vice atcess for the subject area but not: sub- . regional traffic service. iC. 24 24) we agreestrong,l}' with the proposed miti- s gation measures for' storm water run off, septic 2-9) rank use, and for a planned sewage line eaten- sion into areas where future densities mandate -- suc', `ill t:`ies : fat C.4 2-10 We ,concur with mitigation measures 'ptdpr sed for fire protection: Commentary regarding school fact litie,s isx,- d:xS ansion is invade uAte as it rowides o maRing bodies tta'guid'an guidance and gnorespticy the purpose of this ETR. �_• 2='i �, lie concur with the proposed roads polic;Y ti We agree :>trong'iy with mitigation measures propfor library funding. A . ticong, adequate:- y ed library s,,ystem.I s essential for kdti3 - cat°ion af. futu.re generations as tae11 as education and cultural enrichthent of tht present adult papulation in the Chico area' C.14Comments ietgarding recreat:`ion- al facilities needto be expanded to d tettly_ speak to such needs in the lar.gCr area nest of the: tsp:lanade End north o.f T inch Chaannel. It .it conceivable the t one or r.-vire such facil it ties night properly be lot�ated writh`in the study dreg ., -1 should thet-e:fort be planned for, I EIR Page Number Comment -4_ We strongly disagree with the suggaStion that in order to relieve future traffic press-- tires on East Avenue, Lassen Avenue should be widened west of the Esplanade and extended to S.R. 32. 'Introduction of through traffic into the study area would defeat the ob'ectiv , Q it , 1¢W .densi.t E y, suburban r-es.idenial devel,opmcnt . Historically, heavy traffic volumes on thorough- fares generate demands for permitting higher, densities alon&_such.artgr Vis_. 4e,_believe future traffic needs can be met by making the Eaton Road extension a restricted access facility, and by appropriate traffic contrls and channel-- uzation on the Esplanade at the Eaton Avenue and Lassen Avenue intersections. `•� .2-6 Why has the intersection of East Avenue and the Esplanade been omitted? The intersection is alroady, one of the most congested in the region, and future development of commer- major cial uses westerly of the existing development -will only ea co- rbafe Y present poor levels of service, Detailed analyses and traffic engiheer-. ing studies should be made as these may set growth restraints an other parts of northwest ' .3 Chico. The inadequate right-of-way for East- ast Avenue Avenue east of the Esplanade and limits on the amount of service level .ic:)prove men t acheivable through sophisticated traffic engineering are constraints which this EIR must properly address. i .II 124 « �' , loudon : Jeffre? M:, .Chief gnv ronmefital Brandi, .Department„ of 'Transoortation11, ;State '01- alrb-m a � to se T 'Por'tation IHwsin A encY 8 18FH OR. ANDUM a 7'o State Clearinghouse Date: May 9„ 1986 Office of Planning and Research Attention Pamela Milligan File: 03 -But -32/99 1400 Tenth Street P.M. 6.3 Sacrem:nto, CA 95814' Bell -Muir v1'A SCH No. 84051909 1F.r e) i; DEPARTNENT Or 'TPA;ISPORTATION - Telephone ATSS 457-449$ Dist-rict 3, 0. Box 911, Marysville; CA 95901 ,P. Caltrans, 'District 3, has reviewed the draft ETR for the Bell-t-fuir General Flan Arrendmant and revision of the Chico Area Greenline. The site .'.lies between Bell Road and. Highway 32. No specific develo meat plans are proposed at this tirn�, `� � 1 Figjre 3.2-2 shows two new 'hterchanges on Highway 99, one at Lassen AvenJe land one at East 5th Avenue, as recommended improver�ents:for full build -out, There is not sufficient room between existing in tercrances at either location to allow construction of additional interchanges. `hese improverrnnts are not physically passZble. � 9L2Y ». .. 's Report p t for H i gh* ay .32 .the EIR refer er ces the DistrictRoute'.-Concept b}r stating that the report reC6.-mends widening }i�riway 3? to three , lanes in this vicinity. The Route Cbnteptv Report actuc-lly recommends widbnnb to four lanes with bicycle lanes -and left turn poo`rets This project is at the bottom of the'bist5'ictts top ten priorities for eonstructian between 11990 and 19195. Page 3.2-11 states that '!appropriate funding will be acquired from FH A tmd C81trans, .. GiVen current funding shortfalls this r is not a realistic solu4on: Funding may become available for those hi riort ra'ect p y p J s identified in the System tanagement Plan, such as the �iideningof HigN�+'sy 3 Hot;tever; other roadway improvements relied u;56n in the EIR are not: scheduled: for State ;and/or 'Federal funding 'in the foreseeable future: We recommend the County in :cooperation +Kith the it of Ch]:c,, consider a r�_thod to finance len •ran a m_a ` y b r, g g sures necessary to mitigate cumulative imaactsi w ' " r j. � � _r` ` �„ i y ry'a`s•` 4 ✓ V E. T b.strict21985 Omnson. Ausiness Manager/0amptraller, Chico Unifted School• 1 , May , .E-` , CHIC( UNIFIED SCHt30L .STRICT 1163 EAST. SEITENTH STREET Co, (916) 891-30 `5999 : CHICO CALIFORNIA 95"928 0 4 MA'''` Y 5_ 1986 May 2 1986 Butte County Planning Department Attn r Laura Tuttle 7 Coi:nty Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 SUBJECT: JECT: Draft E.I.R. for the Bell -Muir Property Dear Ms. Tuttle: t'-IThe referenced development is located ated w;thsn the areaserved by Neal Dow Elementary School, Bidwell Junior High school and Chico Senior High School. Based on the average number of students per residential unit, it is projected that this development 'would result in 62.x9 elementrary 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 Cour,t;y Ordinance No. 2463 was enacted to enable the District to meet ele�o ntary housing needs and those needs should be adequately..4et E:2 during the 1965-86 school year. It is anticipated that the junior and senior high schools in the District will be able, in existing facilities; to accommodate pro3ected enrollment increases during the E.3 ipcominq `year. The school, overcrowding is substantiated by comparing ' �" the nfistracip eased numbers of students to be s enrollment and ince. gepnerateci,b Proposed residential devlot.ments to the Aistr;ct�s school ca at it da,.a Schoo,`l,_Enrollment-Capacity Comparison School Total School Enrollment C acities Plus: r�ected Enrollment Grade Level (Students) From pre osed Develo mehts 'Di •--•.-Lp i f e ren ce ti,[zde,rgarten 1y026 l A93 + (467) - 1`E' 9f976 7,469 ('x,993) 2;,388 3,.680 t292j 10'12' 2 t 702 3'� 635 + (,933) 17»h0 11 Q'i Department ofpublic Wozksl. Butte Criux�ty: Apr -it 8, 1985. ,> 8ulh� Co . Pl�eninq confit Inter -De p artmenta MemorandumAPRs ��bo (ifovl�Mr �lfaffj Laura Tuttle -Planning Department Department of Public VO' ks F� r SUFz�T. - U Bell -Muir Draft EIl2 wilt, April 8, 1986 This Departm-ant has reviewed the subject E.1 R. and offers the following comments 1. Since this area borders the Chico Urban Area relative to requirements' for curbsu . erg g t' t . , and sidetmiks, we feel that this area should be annexed to this existing Chico Urban Area ' �',.2 Pages 2-5 4 2-11, Road Standards RS -SA & SRS -1 should be Changed to read RS -2 for public roads and applicable Standards for private roads, r a cc: Supervisor Dolan �r L "12 'I TLEtley Laura, Assoe rCe PIa;xer. tuCte ,unt June 27..1.4$1I� - „ r Coull�� ~� .3 LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND BE.AUxY r L PLANNING COMNIISSION June 21, 198.6 'COUNT'Y CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE,CALIFORNIA 99465.3397 PHONE' 534.4601 Bria,,a Kennedy Earth Metrics 859 Cowan road Burlingame, CA 94010' Dear Briant r This letter is intended to summarize comments made by the i� Planning Commission, June 25, 1986; on the.Bell-Muir'Draft Environmental Impact - Report � Re DExFi).. Because of thenature of their cmm oents', a response shoctld be'Drepared for their g 86 meeting as provided for in, Section A.lb o� the contract. t.leclirin hausegstic�l debebad ".Phe comments the Notice of Preparation arid. `� dresses' at this i:ime. Thor ces�7onses will. be -ati .Rddendum t thi~t DEIR becavC�e 03; the q. w i >ho1:t time line and to minimize prii�,ting costs. As we ` p agrtled, when the final, 8IR i!; reparrad, this adclendL�rti and the bodyrofetFlendatsumentyomtner►t5 will be incorPorat;ed into Sinl;e thestai'f designated in your response to the.( RFP on this pould ,be empldt'jieoject hays not yi�t been utilizec , thEsirot� gty s e cpe; tise shd in preparing} the, respor„ses t- . comments in their particular field Specificall in the area. of dry :na e y g we. are looking forward to revietring, the r work of Barret Hai; r1 yot,xr Proposal pra osal had inc'icat,ed they �toulc be retained }�o rre;pare a drainage plan, Specific conunentt tnaft by -he Commission and that need to be addressed are lltt�ed` below.- 1� I. Determine all inlfrastrueture necessary to support 1 a de }iscVelopmerPage ,t.: 2+S of the contract states uss public !;etvices of development and general dxpectod associated costs jhcj>a,d;irjg sewers, storm d�eains, water.• supply, roadways, fire and Police protection, and other uiti l`i_tiez ar°:d services". R.1 $ul5mI ssiren of a drainage plan should ,answer many of 2 th�5 Cammiss.ions concerns about 'drainage. Quantitative data On, curer ;i inproeirrents should ba;submi "tted .c J1 I f3 li n Brian Kennedy, Page Two June 27, 1986 For example, location and size of trunk lines are '.Brown necessary, ih the event that the and. Caldwell- aldwellplan plans not implementedr how will sewage and drainage be accomodatel? it is suggest,sd that all infrastructure improvements be convenierat:l listed in a table. y ZA 2.. Defermine the, cost of infrastructure, The .contract (page 2.3) i'nc�.ic ates 'Earth-Metrics will provide cosh estimates. it. is ackrjowl ed[rfed t1'iat there is a level o zincertainty in develop ens: plans and construction costs. Therefore; diffe:ring scenarios Gond cost ranges can be given,. .For ex-;xnple cost of participating in a community wide seiner 8y. stem, or neighborhood sewage treatment system ;package plant) k,� pta c i;ys`cein are permitted, 41 atypical system cost per d�te:xl,zacceptable. Specif ment layout and cir��un;sta ices will cleterrrtine ons ai4e in `rastruotu:re costs. Repre_tentative roosts pet ]l i,ne�t� foot for sewage, water and d ainage :trines, eto'. .ehq lci bei given. . be pita--rated on an acreage =and nb' basis haroyeed�on nef tld cs. P,,tsidpnts sihoula be assessed a fair share of the costs, based rn tr,-.tffxc increases or new resic3enti:al units: improvemen,tl; neetited solely bece4use of this ;project should be ehtiro.l,v funded by neighborhood residents : Al cysts shbu". Ib �t.is pd in a table. 3: Hot_ W LII: it„tom©�te���ents bE : finaYti ed?' It, to This anG,lysis is pkovAded for in the contract X2_3) . A brief, discussion: of differont types ok district's, powers 1 anid e ttabli<hmerlt. propedutes is adceptable, Ah aiterna"tivd {3 Khann.sm 1 ` s the. 'pay as you go” n ethod with the provision res aburs , en t' foz: `Oversize faellitleS c a:>ect.ibnv houla be eXPanded to, include: acts r� 'nmore�pE'i"] �3 GVinfornlatibn on inlpacts tetultiiig °JCC�tl 1#i 1 de��elo �r►�p '..n , is of the, entire AOG acres.. r U 'Tuti: e, S�au a A aoc3Ate 1`lanrier Butt_ County lilagning Departmanti mmai w ed rDeremb during. p 1y98 5 ` i comm eon ' burin public, hearings and: other comments utwa�iir rig th comment, e , .�� L`AN4 OF NA7URAl WEAlifi,AND BEf,lJ7Y A' pi ANNING COMMISSI )N 7 COUNTY CENTER ORIVt OROVILLGE, CALIFORNIA 45965.33911 PHONE: 534.4601 } Brian Kennedy : Sasrthl•le'tri;cs Inc. 859 Cowan Road' Burlingame, CA `9',iO1 !t I1ar- Ear i an! - As r -� hoard meeting of December 21 1986 concerning the I � �?� we �f i acus.= ed �t the Se e l -Mu 1 i*" s I k s I ayou hereby sending to a summar�,of comments made on tf-le d")c;umellt . Ttie 1ro _eter^ has four parts'. a summaryof t omments made at the hubi is lieartn tgc a summary of Supero I stt- Uo i an's comments, a 'i i st of my eommerit_y anct a list of pertbns commenting ori this +docs mtn Mt. Al I of these comrents wi I I be re-spUnded to purtuaht, tc, your' c,bntr{aet,: The test f of the dcctume_-nt ki i Ibe amend6d to ret lect �bhy changes in data or cond i t 1 oris. the �,l ann i rlp (i rector sha l i reit i car and; apt*-ove the cOnsu l taut ' "s responses to comments pr, I or, to your mak i n51 the appropriate text revisions amd printing of the So coPies Of the rival EIR. Section :4.0 of the coin tract l nd i cater' that'you w I '1 1 prow I de to us S top 1 es Of � these respL-irises; to tomments 6 "f~le f o i 1 e) I rio 1 s, a summary of the public comments trade 6h the document at the Soard o41 Dery 'r sots' hearings dated November , .1 98b artd p, Dreceinber �e; 19e6. I7rA 1 CYec1c l�.piy� I The treen t i n:e t i rtid 1 ngs dnot ap o 1 he.i ncreas . %fie 1 1 "l lu i t s e: I n 'l:raf t i t and dra i t`iage as a result t oti Mie project w i IT nay be as great as oh the Arno l d -Rad i f' l c, snopp i ho center which the Soerd apiproved on; a Neoat i ve Dec i arz+t I ran. Septic tahks are 'reds amen°Jed Instead of community sew{sr, , ido m4>chan i sin' i s arra i 1 ab'l a to provide for Poli +_e patrol on a pr-oJect-by-project basis. It is recommended, that one 1 ar;ge district be formed and resident deputies considered t-le further questions the 'useG of a bene r i t assessment d `r' str i ct to spread the costs .of ,levelopment. 1.5 1!4 r verc _use % represent) ncs tierse'I ti !'he Farm Bureau would not defend -;qu i r as agr i cu l tura 1 1 and. Trxe � f i c and dra 1 nage meed to be :e t id. i ad 'i s a dra i,n�age, problem in he fie!" 1 l ..I1uei.l area. not believe i eve that there � 1 7' F rbr,�Cigraze 1 ,1 does not bell leve there is a dra 1 nage problem In the ,dell -Iruir area. A1 other commehts made at the November 4, 19e6 Board of Supervisors' ties ai­ing were directed to the project and not the Elft'. They theref-tare do r'n.ot meeld to be ii►ddressed . ',he ti o l l ow i ng Is a summary of comments made: at the December Supero' i 1sors' hearing. rthe :suggestion that a cUO-foot setback of residebtiat uses from agricultural uses will limit the buildable- area of the lots. 9, 2, lar, Page 2-&, Nihat is the tistiing of deveIIdpment? It is suggested that the wording be changed to allow for a provision that, after a g i v h ,percentaj-qe of the 1 o t have developed out, all jnfrastruciturei Imprr,ovemer+ts w 1 l be constructed: 11 ,...". He +clues rioi..,, tool that an underground drainage t. necessary g lna ssem +_g system i_ y and would prefef^ to see the c6nd i t i bn that an adequate dra i n.W e system be Prov 1 ded for. 14I1, a , He.. d.omirelnted that requiring dra i nage, to accommodate a 100-yea^ stor.we it unuiwb 1. A more reasonab 1 e standata,,d, i n his op l M l ern , l i� Prov i d tng for a 10- to 20 -year storm: It It supoested that port l ohs of ibarcit l s be used as 'holding bas l ns for drat nage water. �.12 6.- Hei acimmented that the ',requ i C.dmo'nt to sewer the propert l es i s excess i VEi ,13gj— i s i ntere�ted i rt hydro 1 �yg i s data l nd at C ng that 1-:ac'r"a' cteve l opme�nt ori sept l c tank`s r� i l i not cibntarn nate the Or'- bar overload the Sol l s j .� 4 +il Beck i rid l catead that Poll i co patrol s should be eiic 1 Uded from the list of 'ml t i gat l on mdiasuress. He suggests that the funding for, the i Provided � 'an assessmont ira4�rastructure i i',nprovemerits be rov l ded f nr ' thr ough diistr•ict: d 1 � Brazel li nd'1 cated the area is "alr-eady dcdve 1 oped" and does not ha of a drainage problem 16 Durrel 1 commented that a sewer system; drainage system and sidewalks B�-m not normally required on development w1th a parce1 size of 1.01' 17 »L .an Hgrschbura commented that the existing A-5 zoning is f d'ksrt'"' i m i natory 1 n light of the mor^e intensive zoning +,allowed on East. Afi�e.�ti.lt� T..1, i the pro ect description is inco Ja,a Viol an+a pp rrrect in that the al ternat i ire area encom asses more than 400 acres. .19 al. The recommended agricultural setback Is unclear and reeds t o be reworded' to spec I f i cal l y state that I t apps i es" to the Per i meter of indlyidual parcels or the perimeter of the alternative, project area. .20 3w The property is outside of the .Nitrate. Action Plan. No statement has been made whether 1 acre on septic tank compl'1es with said plan. .'11 4. :Cin Wage 2-4# eliminate: the hourIy limits on farmersi, The impact of con f11ctirg land use and the suggested ml t1gation measures are unci ear• and infeasible. 1 h l F, I s an area where a f i nd ng' w i l l have ' to be made on incompatible land Use. All cost "f i guess s;hou l d g i +fie a source and year: . ., i4reawide traffic eonditIons are slGin 1flcant M"itigat I on measure suggesting tPe use of +ederal funding is -not adequate: Altermt«lve mltigatson measure.-- must be under the control of the_bcydy adopt'Vhq the document: The '+b1low ing art my comments based on the resu1is of the pubi'1c hewr"ing protass and preylous memos to your f1rm J.24 1 The tt5ta'1 expanded project area is closer to 430 acres rather than 400 acres 1.25 ';a. As:noted l.n 'pre"vious'memos; maps need to be changed on the following pages' y.1-5„ 2.1-12, 3.2+-9o, 3. - 42' . i-5 i-4 1.26 8,., On Page 1-5j change '•a sewerage study" ` to "the N i trate Action Plan," «27' 4, Coes the table fbUnd.on Page 1.2-1 assume 400 acres? How were these figures derived? 1 8 '`' Vii. Typos Were found 'ot7 the fa'1lowlrtfj pages't 2-1 y second paragraphs '� i rt f rastructt�r-e'� t 2,-2 first paragr;.dph s " I nd i v i due 1 4 �?_ f second naraeraph * drop "5PE? '" y add '°to" atter 00abillty"112=7 i second pai^apraphr '•flueil; 2-yi "desirability"; 3.a -5y fourth paragraph; a I most"� 3.4-1 0.y second Pdragra0h l "reso l ut I din."' 3 h '� !AVr I Page 2-89 change "not significant" to "potentially significant, noting that the mitigation measures are infemsible." page 2-11, the reference to the 100'-year storm should be clarified to read: "The minimum pipe size is to accommodate a 10-year storm, however no flooding of houses and no more than one-third of the road from the curb to centerline shall be inundated during a 100-year storm.:" Fuge 2-11, concerning the groundwater monitoring, in the event that 'subsequent groundwater monitoring 'indicates that there 'is. contamination, what would be the result? We would have permitted development at: a given density and then after the fact gone in and r*equired to at dens ttythe Wto11 and groundwatErl`esdetermine What w111 notbecontamInatedand proceed from there,: .32 4, on rage 2-120 was the cost of the sewer extension based on the Rol Is, Ande'r•son and Rol Is figures? Super-visor Dolan indicates that costs now being discussed between the City and the County would ind,icate that a sewer extension could cast as much as s15 m1111on. the cost in the 'document of a S3-million trunk extension seems artificially low. 1 �page 2- . 14, the So.ard of Supervisors on December 2, 196b; approved an increase in the school fees to s0.80 per, squarb foot for esldentlal structure's. I.S 11 page 2-17, :why didn''t the dollar per acre change Under the annual cOtt for scehario 1 and 21 I .S5 12'. page 8.1-1 s will the change in the; project area affect th16 +number . 55br 1.36 .13 Page :"s:change the table.; Page .�.1-9, note on the map: "See Appendix 16,66 for revisions." i' cuss<i 6h to Wit.* "7he. Gr-eeh l 1 ne -g a e d the d s .3, 1-� and. 3� 1 , m n h , policies do not apply in the Bell MUir area. See memo and motion." lb Page 3,1-11:, el IM1nate "arid 6zoning designations 'on." I .. n, no :f w111 be 41� 17 . page ,� .1 ' 1 1 � change the Gr� een l '� ne discuss 10 Ir` necessary f.,41 jai F�ag2UO_f.00t`J_�o expand the setback to i d i cateUthatn it ncou 1 tl the 1 on 1 Y bea'00168, iton of he the pert meter of the expanded project urea 71ono Bell #ind Mulr, AvenUe 'i + � ,,. Page 3.2-4, 3.2-7, the extension of Lassen Avenue to Highway 32 is inconsistent, with the adopted County Circulation Element. If the extension is a recommendation of the consultant it would'rroquire an amendment in this document. Page 3.2-16, first paragraph, have d Henshaw Avenues been excluded, .- a West Lassen an i page 2-18 the suggestion that pedestrian crossings be considered is not very specific as to type or location. giscussions with Supervisor Golan would indicate that the only pedestrian crossing which would :be suitable to Jay, Partridge School would require a constructed elevated walkway. The cost and feasibiltty of doing this may make the mitigation measure infe,asible., ;22 , page 3 , 3-3, note that three We`l 1 s have been tested i n the area as; part oi' the Nitrate Action Plan, 1,46 2a. page 3.3-4, the posit on statement from Supervisor Dolan .refers to the Brown and Caldwell plan, not the Rolls:, Anderson and Rolls study inferred in the document.. 1,4, ;2,4Page 3.B-61 the current standard of three dwelling units per. `acre on septic systems Within the Chico Urban Area is temporary. Page 3.4-1i end paragraph five with the statement that 8001 MU is outside of the Brown and Caldwell plans forsewer and drainage n ! r e 3.4_8� change the secondto"the-last sentence ' nce to read, "The drainage plan will be compatible With the Rolls, Anderson and Rolls plan, but will not supersede it." 1..501 27 , Page 3.4-5, fifth :paragraph' change language to 'read, ''have adopted fees. " Y ed the an ordinance.:. Last 3;entence, the Board has recently inr..:reas 52 p-8 Rage 3.4-10,t ref l ect the change In the fee sc;• Odu l e,. .29. Fuge 4-11 second paragraph, "and zoning "an"zoning desigrr'ations." X53 30 Rage 4-2, the expanded project area is 430 ;acres, bot 400`. 1,,54 31 '5-1, does the revised fee schedule mitigate the impacts? As we discussed at the December 2 board hearing, I havemet with Supervlsor Doian,to take her, comments on the document. The board authorized this meeting as a mechahism for the. Supervlrtors' comments to be made;and'addressed. I am forwardingthem to `you for response i2-21 w ri page 1-1,, first paragraph, second sentence, please change to read: 0i`he pro,,ject a,reii .i nVo l ves approximately E70 acres within a larger +30 -acre Me,1 gh:)orhood- bounded ,by. Bel 1 Road, � fi� Page 2- , the feasIb111ty of state and federal financing Is uncertain. Programs such as UDAG and EUA have been cut; the others ►•tall probably be cut 1n the future. By policy, benetlt assessment districts al"e only used when the Issue is one of public health. A r^ed0Ye 1 opmertt area is, not on the negotiation table with the City of Ch i;co ;rl Page 2-3, add the following information. Adoption of the project �s proposed would require amendment to the following regional plans, the sewerage plan=, the storm drainage plan, school needs stvdi es Chico U 4 rbtan Area Transportaiton Plan, Butte' County Circulation It-lem'ent, LAFGo's Spheres of Influence, the Nitrate taction Plana and the 'financing plans for all of the above. Aspprova1 of #,he Project would' constitute a departure from the adopted land use -plan and reverse a policy which took ten years to achieve.. Page -4, clan^Ify the �p0-foot .setbacl< reco"4r,andatio'n, and IxSv el i~m i Hata noire ;cont`ro l .and hn+ars of operate i oh 'limits on farmers. I Ait 1111.59 bre Page 2-5, the buffer concept could only apply to Muir Avenue and is determined to be, infeasible as a mitigation measure for the entirE area, it is therefore recommended for elimination. Paae-b, concaioning the cost for roadway realignment, abandoning ,t,6 A. ` and acquiring of right -of -Way is much more complicated and costly than described. I� or eXaimb 1 e r there ariti .ex i sting structures i n the way of some preipoaed realigi-Iments, such as Mardi, Rodeo ,and Henshaws and the Grange H;a11 The land acquired versus the lClnd abandoned, is not equal i fi dost. There a; e legal prrice,dures which are requ i red to abiandoh `right; -of -way . 1t is suggested that mare intlernai cieculation be developed, such Y C as -considering dead-end struts no the identlfi.caton of one; main road to. connect - the 'ne i ghborh ood to Eaton. This road Wou 1'd b i sect the neighborhood.,anti would require future designs of subdivIs1bns to back up onto the road rathetr` than have direct access. These types of recommendations would require an amendment to the i ecu 1 at i ori Eli=merit i he masct feasible road to connect to Eaton i s Guynn. ,fv 7, Page 2-8, on the tIm'Ing Provision, eliminate the Provision tare tie r�h;�i, - 'rmFircavements partment of Pub i l c Work deterrtt I nes , instal 1 ed . There are other mach ^isms for I nst;a 1 I ng the I-mprovements, such ar; lot by Iot with rblmbursemant„ agreements� areataide distr*icty as property delveiaps with payment +Af Pro rata share to rema i n I'ng i m;�rbvdments; when 5OX of t;he properties have sobdi v i ded to the m 1 n i alum adreages-t by Board oer i nance, eta. if a perdentag,e figure it going to be used to to 1 g;�er I mprovements, we cou'id do it a number of d1fferent Ways, by foreIng payment from the undeve l oped properties after50;Z Saye developed, or, In addition , by regUiring that area roads go on the Capital Improvement Program after a cert=ain percentage has developed. �63 t b, Page 2 -et they mitigation measur a of pursuing ;state funding Is I Oprac . i ca 1 . We do th is a ready+, and Be'1 1 ••�1u 1 r Roads wou l d not be considered a h0 gh-priority item. All "roads will need private funding s,our�cE s or the impact Is not ,m i ti 9atiad. 1,64 9 It would be appropriate to consider another ,east -west road 1 i k:e the Lassen:Avenue Avenue e ex tension , to improve c i r.CLI 1 at ,)n ' Z,.,6"5 1 V., Page 2-9 tha bi k"e impacts and con:. l i cts of bikes and vehicles are s i gn i, f 1 cant. We need better bike paths, and these should be _ defined. x.66 11. :Pedestrian crossinG at Jay- Partridge, as noted previously, would be an expensive undertaking "and is there=_fore not feasible. T.,67 12. Page 2a -!O,, mitigation measures o►7 a s i to—by-site basis won't m i t. i -gate overall problems. find i v i dila 1 dr -a i naget solutions such as dry wells and drainage trenches have been prohibited by the Nitrate Action Plan, �.6..8 1a. Page.. 2-11, the solution to nitrate contamination is the Installation of sewers. Hydrogeologic data should be utile"zed to set development dens Wk es which will not cause nitrate problems.a This avoids the situation of deVelopmenti monitoring, then Tnttallatiott of sewer -it ►after the fact. .69, i4. Page. �!12, the project w-1 l l requ i re an amendment to the Nitrate' Action Plan 1470 15. Paig,I§ 2-12, the City may hot permit a new :ErUnk l ilia to +:he p 1 arat. _ if the property Is to sever, then it would have to be with the concurrence of the City of Chico, in accordande with the Brown and ira 1 d,we l 1 p l an T ere ford i the property would have to become part of the Brown and CaIdwel1 study ,area". The financing to make these r ch:.k-jj;ies in the plan i s unk n6wn ., page 8: i -'1 1 , the d i scuss'i on on urban deve 1 opment trends trhd patteri7s should have been Forwarded Into the summary as a i gn f i cant impact need i n `m i it i oat i'on.. lz, i2 i'7. Page 4-_, another project al terilat l we Is the i ncof^porati oh of the Sell -Muir properties into the West l=ast Avenue land Use study now In process. 1.13 18 . PI-rigt_ 1 "b . 1 1 e retitle the document to read, "Niemta frrotr SUpery i Vor� 116'1 an to 196ard of SuF.ery i so�-s Oust 1 l n i ng an 1Mp l em'ent'atl oM Pr 6gr'artl For the Nl trate Action 01 ati .'+ I I'iit not sure whether i`t WOUl d be under Chapter 11 or Chapter 12.%, thte ,� nt throng the public hearing comment the document process a#ir.-on t f rite, A it Beck jiti,* .igurre l , gtfAor"d of Superyi tors pi14onn l ng Comf'n i ,acs i o n �I Fo.y Schoenfeld lhl-wtthew Webber, " nkwr i s She 11 jaee 'Turner lillarsha W i emekf" t4lel syne 'turner " Fabert Olsen 1ahave included a: copy of the minutes of the hearing Process, to date. P141,e.ase cal' if any, of these co►'nments areunclear or you need further Owrec;t i ons tiFncere l y' y .f Griiirector of P i inn i,,n -, �"SlZbc l a.te' Planner L rMIT✓'si s IL