HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B MOOSEBERRY/BURREU GPA/REZ;
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section:
_pMe
PREFACE'....,•.... .:..i: ... •.. ,..•::\..................... .a.
v
1..
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........ ..:....
1-1
1.1 Location and Character of Project Site .............:.::
1-1
1,2 Projeet Characteristics .::.... ......:........:. ......
1-1
1\3Intended Use of the EIR ... .•.....•......t. .....,
1-5
2,.
SUt SAfiY ............. ..••....•'...•......
2-1
2.1 Project Impacts and Mitigatiom Measures ..
2.2` Alternatives Evaluated ......,,.....:.......•.......;..
2-2
2.3 .Areas of Controversy/,Issues to be Resolved ....:•..,.:.,
2-3
EFL-ItCTS DETERMINED TO BE SIGNIFICANT OR POSSIBLY'
SIGNI.?ICANT: EXISTING SETTING, IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES :.... .....: ... ...e.......\... ........
3.1-1
3.1 Land Use, Planning, Applicable Plans ,and Policies ..0-4,
3.1-1
3.2 Tra'fic and Circulation .:.. •....•....a ..:..•..,....
3.2-1
3,,3 Geo ugylHydral6gy \i..•..: ....b.••• ..... ....::..:,,...
3.3-1
3.14 Publ Z Services and Utilities ....... i. .:«.,..... ..
3o4-1
4
ALTERNATIVES ...,...:.:,...
4-1
4.1 No Projeat Alternative i...:.»{::.., .....-..::. .:.:..:.
4-'1
44.2 PYpanded Project Area. Alternative
4-2
5.:
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS VMZCH CANNOT 'BE AVOIDED
IF THE PROJECT 'IS IMPLE14ENTED •iii.:e :.:....:.-i:y.:.:y:..0 :..
5-1
6;
,GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS .' .:..::......:.. .::. .:.. .;, ..:
6-1
'.�rt,*
CUMULATI04 IMPACTS • f. ► ..:. i . . • . Y. a .. i • 'I .... 6 . i :. ► it .: , y: Y M .... •
8.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LONI� SHORT TERM USES OF MAWS
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND F OF
LONG TERM' PRODUCTIVITY ...,�:..a•*a..rNHANCEMENT
:
9
IRREVERSIBLE ENVIROttI NTAL CHANGES AND IRRETRIEVABLE
CO1*MIT14BNT OF RESOURCES
9-1
10:
_I'FECTS NOT POUND TO !AE SIGNIFICANT ....•.,:.. +..r. i... '..:
E
10-1
®
'I`HE
11 •
LIST' OF COMMENTS ON bRAFT 91 ..::.....:...... . .........
11.1;
12
COMENTS RECEIVED ON THE b# T '8f ..... ► ...:: :.:. ► ... r . \ ,
12--1
13.
RESPONSES TO 001419NTS ON THE DRAFT EIR ►.►.:... .... i..: ..
13-1
�_ i
'
1.1 tial
+
1
i
-
' M ti
8eatiwn
.. _
PaFte
14.
REFERENCES.
-PERSONS AHI? PUBLICATIONS C DN�iUL7,ED
t4-1
......
15.
PREPARERS OF THIS REPORT
Ft
..,....,r:...; .... .....:...... .......
15-1
16.
tiPPENDICES .».......
....
16.1
initial Study ..•.:..,........•.
16.2
.......,.:...:, ......
Letters in Response to-1i'otice of Preparation
16.1_1
16.>_1
16;
16.4
........,,.
List of Parcels Involved in the General Plan Amendment
16.*G_1
16.5
16:6
Applicable Znning Regulations ..; • , : ..... .. ,
Chico Area Greenline P'ol.icy ....;�, .•••.• ....
Minor Revisions_to
16 •41-1
r*i ure
6.1 1 General Plan Land Uss-
'Map '.
16 •7
... .., .... .,,
• r:..... .• ..• . ••i ....•
Population•Data in Butte County••. .••r •
16,6-•1
16 .8
� • • ...... • .:..... • ... ` •
Demographic :luta in Butte, County
16 ,1'_ 1
16.9
Reasonably Anticipated Future Pt ":... .....,.,,.. .;.. ..
o jects in ttie Area ....
16 81
.
16:9-1'
16.10
Methodologies and Assumptions fisr Estimating the
16±13
Costs of RecommendedMitigation ......... ..........r „
Memo Fran Sup�:rvisor Dolan, to Board 'Supervisors
16.10-1
of
Outlining al Implementation Pregram for the
Nitrate Action Plan .........04...
16.12
..•.
Discussion of Public .Improvement Vinanoing Methods16:12-1
•YY:..
16.1
1
- 11
,.r
LIST OF FIGURES
l
LOW -
1, • ] -1
Regional Setting of the Project Site...... ....... ..:
I..S
1.1-2
Local Setting of the Project Site
1
1.'1-3
Location of Parcels Involved in the General Plan Amendment..
1-4
3.1-1
City ,and County General Plan Land Use Designations
in the Projeot Vicinity ... .•........... ..».:-,,...•......
3.1-
1 2
Zoning Designations in the 'rojec Vicinity.'.....,~..........
3.1-5
3.1-3
Location of the Chico. :Area Greenline ...... .....,�:..:...:.
3.1-1?
i
3.2-1
20 Year Im;; tbVement Program 1930 to Year 2000 .. . , :........
3.2,-3
3:2-2
Recommended Street System at Full t-ild0ltt� ,,,,.,..�. ......
3.2-5
3.2-3
Butte Countjr Ci;reulation Element Diagram .......
3.2-1Q
j
3.2 -y
Akewa s Plan rof the Chico GeneralPlan .... .3.24.12
3,4-1
Potential Sewer Bxtensi,ori Plan ..
,4.-3
3.-4-2
summary of= Storm -Drainage Facilities Required in the
North Chico Area :.... ,..: •......•.:...:: .:.. :....
3.4-4
i3.i
P Y-kr FACE
The Butte
n y a�ning bepartment has determined that an Environmental
�p - pc�rt$ .ragUired i,orr the proposed: General Plan Amendment related to
the Bell-Muir Property. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the
dW purpose of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is to provide objective
Information to public decision makers and the general public regarding
potexitial environmental effect;o re;,ulting from project implementation. Butte
County can then institute methods of reducing adverse impacts or consider
alternatives to the ,project.
This Draft Environmental Impact Report has beenp ropared for Butte County in
conformance withCaliforniaa tho, Environme,ctal Quality Act .of 1970 (CEQA) as
m
amended. fihe degof specificity ree required in-an Environmental Impact Report =
corresponds to the de,gr,ee of specificity .involved in the underlying, activity.
The proposed General Plan Amendment does not involve construction Af projects;
therefore, the analysis presented in this report is more general than the
analysis which could be required if the project were a specific development
proposal.C
tom' Guidelines Section '5146 states the following regarding the
degree of s ecificity of an Envirc V'�;O,ntal Impact RePor•t;
EQA
(a) An EIR on a construction project will necessarily be more detailed in
the specific effedts of the project, than will be an EIR on the
adoption of a local General Plan or comprehensive zoning ordinance
because the effects of construction can be predicted with greater
accuracy.
(b;) An. EIR on a project, such as the adoption or amendment of a
comprehensive--zoning ordinance or a :local General Plan, shoal favus
on the secondary effects expected to follow from the adoption, or
amendment; but the EZtt heed not be as detailed as an EIR on the
specificsconstruction proiects that might foliat.
Theh �esourees Agency of California has adopted- amendments to the uuidel�tnes
PRnvironmental Impact Reports,, which incorporate the recent changes in
CEQA, The EIR guidelines allow the preparation of an 'EIR which addresses only
significant project effects. Butte Gountlf Planning Department identified a
number of aroas in which the project could have significant effects on. the
environment, ibol.ud'ing land use, planning, traffic, soils, drainage,
economicsf publics services and utilities ("see Appendix' 13.1„ initial StttdY)y
Also included in the amended guidelines (Section 15126'(c)) is the peovisjon
that "the discussion of mitigation measures shall distinguish between the
treasures that are propobdd by prgjeot proponents to be included in tho projeot
and other treasures which are 'not inrluded,. but 04114 be reasonably expected to
reduce adverse itnpaets": Aocoedinglyt all';mitigation measures roaommended
specifically noted. Where uppropriate, this EIR incorporates by reference
within this EIR are not resentl° incltaded in the project unless otherwise
doel�rents that are readilyavawla
ble ;o the peheral p>tblie, in accordance ctl;i;h
Section 15150 of` the Guidolines.
t'hi`s Environmental Impagt Report (EIR) evaluates the impacts of converti
Butte County I s Geaeral Plaza Land 'bse P',ap designation for the Ee'11- Huir
y g 1 (one dwelling unit per a°ive t�cre$� MaXimum DenLity�
Property frrtm a ricultura
V
r.
s
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1
1 LOCATION AND' CHARACTER OF PROJECTSITE
The properties involved in the proposed General Plan Amendment are located in
unincorporated Butte County, adjacent to the western side of the City of
Chico, California. The affected area involves approximately 270 acres within
a larger 430 acre neighborhood bounded by Bell Road, Muir Avenue, Alamo
Avenue, Henshaw .Avenue, East Avenue, and the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks.
The regional and local setting &.,f the project area are presented in Figures
1.1-1 and i.i-2, respectively. The project area and affected parcels are
identified .in Figure 1.1-3. The affected parcels are listed in Appendix 13.3
by Assessors Parcel Number and acreage.
IThe project area is currently used for residential and agricultural purposes.
Portions of the project area have been subdivided into one acre parcels for'
residential, uses, which is inconsisteht with the existing General Paan Land
Use a:ld zoning requirements in the area. However, the majority of the project
area is developed with walnut orchards and other agricultural Uses on larger
parcels
1.2 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project i
s an a.mettdment to the Butte: County General Plan Land Use
Map and a revision :`.0 the Chico Area Greenline. The amendment would change
the countyts land Use designation from "Agriculture: Oechard and 'Field Crops"
(-five acre Minimum parcel size) to "Urban: Ageicultupal - Rasidential" (one
acre minimum parcel size). The amendment is an administrative action and
would not involve construction. The proposed Urban: AgricUltural Residential
lar
d use designation will encourage private property owners to subdivide
existing parcels for residential development. Approximately 30 residential
Units eUrren.W y exist in the project area. The existing land use designation
would allow for the construction of an additional 20 Units, ,for a total of 5.0
a, resioential.
units' with buildout of the area.
The proposed General Plan Amendment Would allow for the construction of a
maximum of 270 new residential Units, for a total 6P 300 residential units,,
with buildout Of the area (see Table 1.2-1)'
.r
Development of additional Urban uses in the project ariBaL Would require
relocation o the City of "hioo%County of Butte Greenline, Which is known as
the Chico Area Greenline. The relocation et the. ore
enline Would be considered
A primary part of the proposed Project because the existing Greenlihe defines
the limits of futuro urban development and provides long term protection of
agricUltueal resources in the Chico Area of Butte'CoU2ity. The project area
lies within an .area defined as the Chico Area Greenline Study Area -lumber i"
j g; AA ., the Policies) .
(See Sectio. 8.1 , Laa'�d Use Planniri Applicable, Plans and
H6wever the Greenline revision 'could not be the same Q line definit
Study Area Number 1: The new Greenline Would fallow the boundaries of the
parcels affected -by the General Plan Amendment (see Figure 1.13)
' , t
«
i stir T -.f t• 'twl r ii
I- 'A1
r C"L [• � R '�v'Y' �'
�t � e� 1='.all S A �iM••r^�� ori lr+('n�tf:Y, .�, Qi.
, ,. = i drrT, a fit, 1 «• #1 d'L� i •*�' f,,� cf .}..'«�r t
r..Y Mp �1 t r y'S M4ai'vJ ^rtw 11K� ry' t ,�T7.j�
/� '.a 1 a: <r��rt. i ✓ � i rtys t �.-,.,r ;S err'" �y 5' � , (s�
t �✓1'rr^�j iR 71~ r•,rt✓ 'tr r- s.i hY :.� ylfr-J [ , '�
r ' :. � ji rt��' �� J � r ,� Sa r� sFri�t. R` t T � � 11"1 � � 'h�7 tiLy �h't:.aC'•� � .. � �-'
'.. 1' ,.es 1 t. Y s' sirlE.r ,yt J # ✓ Ra Y �.✓. �' ly) w s- _. ��"",
';�-rw^1�. 11� `srx �Yr 1 -' i 1' „✓_, 1r t t✓ w.,+�SW ,:4+Lj c, s•':lr v.�'+ ! Q
�R ✓ s 1 yrf i re. tsr} ,, .r. 1'.%
1ii1
,•. -1 1 ./id L r-i'.R' w ^tt N n �,' J.r s �•'r'-G�
aar i J S: d Y i7 J a p1 : N
:. p�tA •rJ4 ^L4"J1s ,� t A^�1i r� a t :. T, "r �yPii�T P f'r '��r'^J1\tirN ^r%{.A: i�'•tR�'}si .=�'-sZ- a
+' R "`J �« 1 21... i p t yy r +lar'.Nd+R,Ga. y f"'.>�R Zai is -`.''r � !. i "✓
r ••aG ar �L JY d w i sitNWi �i�42r �sNhn' f','ei M ry1as13 ,.7-a
♦ j 1 .F i7i1.t,"F�,U:� .rir. .: �•i� h -i
.4. s 5, ar .r r1r♦♦r ^ a� wl dG rtiFY f
� J' ✓i` . t � yr Y ai: •iJ.-✓y V y .y1+ � � :ra", � ..
' � t ,ti`s,+• rrt� T,�iyJ"tLt-nr'"° % / � Cw7
w,.
I- \, t r .{ry TiiJw ,t'lr {��r .1{l. 1� F•+
t
1 Q
} a•J Rtii•^t�.i„ }�• y. i iS s,1 tt rT-v^ts , iiia' i ��
} 1 �' t•�"S v %'i'C Z � 5`., ri ,srr T 1 t i F � t � `'1'w- � :'�
r�4 �Ga1�'��.1r �yJ. rr '"s ;.� .'S'F'r •f1 r ri., ,�
"l - -��3k �t��i "r r`.+:ri-tCbv... r.,,G --"'�'��laF• }S - rr v4. `'Se{t� _
� i�tJy r�`�"i'T J's1� '�pi,R,ts����.t.t `".,r, •'" r.R i��;&« � �^-"i2r�it ,t �.
+ �. i� i�1 '*. i'N �"'•Af''u- ; �Y1sI ti�Z� - � i i`�.t .R H
2 y
r2�r - t >• s y
ID
~' LiJ �'tS,- Litt,, w -i M �• y -r „.. � �
r3 o L3,r i ti �S 7N T s-. {t ^•
-lj lti 2fj r7 -^l a Sa-+-aJ i N '1 r
—.^t 1 s1yP:k ��r1 ��t; a a.! '•t.43 y=':1 :,i � � ^r,�, ter,, �1 t
L t.L �f.,�*.'`) 2 w a?'..�4i rbt Kit-"`''G.,✓...h.. ° f`'t titiKi.. � is
} Cv
1 ?-^�.tP.�S �.tiL. .L i -i a ry .fpJ� ti'^r•',t'� ref
R
�, 1 1j7 i 1:IP n � M�,•^siw :'1.-,�;` r. O
��� `'+� ���i,,:fiL'3}'�er �� ri.S ,���t':�4?v�_'S'•��t`r' ��: t � j �.
'�at^^`ryii„•\.yl�., a^„ + � �,.r,„; � nR,y'}, X71
. ,3'r + a��}}��r��1n�21J' v t�A .�i`,y{7.2c• d .. ,fid 1N
r ,?y rf i�`•, �Ki �Tti « �•-..'',•i7 � p �-y w"�;
L
i
y
1-4
•-i. • it � '�� �" i � } ~, fLL
M1 I
f
�Y'�'�•,��t'".'�''#h`�.r�f]� �y "SIL\4 � �t �S �}�� ;� 1 •j � ✓� w' t . �� M f ��� 4 �
�� Y. +�. ..+�„�- � �' •� �' �g fit., �t\l' \ 7 � �/ t XPi. 'G �
+ ; ti "�✓ /d F dpi +"� u V Asfo
` ' O � � if .I • �, W
.. -..�
a
c
a
N+F \ a
s� u
y,Z "i"• IbOYJIIY q
. ,� d\tib% ,.. S'�� f` :�'�♦ \���,y `\N`J � .� I �
�� �\,% �",�`y+� i, �P' t"+aita , �{� �`..s'U[2t'Ry�A i,•� ii .� *sf ��C f rsJ
rar.
a A• S• (Y.a
-'_ `_ � ,i * 1 _ _ -_.. 3�' .N "a►on. JAS �:. �
h
W
ix ow,aam 0t
w
It
x
a�,
j
'I I
h � SUMMARY
y
211 PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEAsu,R s
2,tMMarfimpacts andMitigationMeasures. The investigation conducted for
reportthis included an examination of the environmental impacts. The major
;project impacts are summarized in Table 2.1-1. The significance of each
opact is noted along with the required or recommended mitigation measures,,
f O�C,,k)e significance of each impact with and without mitigation is also noted.
1b.0 following impact categories are used in Table 2.1-:1: beneficial impact;
tNSS) not significant impact; (PS) potentially or possibly significant impact.
�=j impact which cannot be precisely assessed at this time) and (S)'
E -.,%pact.
z� ; nificant adverse (
8iixogey,of Mitigation Costs. Table 2.1-2 summarizes the approximate cost of
the required and recommended mitigation measures for the proposed project and
gxpande4 Project Area Alternative, Appendix 16.10 presents the methodologies'
and assumptions which were utilized for estimating the costs of recommended
gation. The costs reflect 1986 dollars and conditions. .Each cost is
L-ased on the'assumption that buildout would not be staggered. Some mitigation
quirememts for the ExpandedProject Area Alternative apply to the proposed
pr.ojeet despite the lower overall density. In this ease, the improved logic
and stability of ;the Expanded Project Area Alternative is identified as
obtapared' to the proposed project. All costs are worst case estimates based on
doasultat,tons with public officials and engineers. Field checking by a
Infr°istructure,gsuch as 'sewer and required sy rems when more Professional en sneer would b q fine cost estimates for
and hater systems a specific,developnient
plans are proposed. Cost estimates for infrastructure and public services
should 'be expected'to change in the future as.a response to inflation and
changing conditions: Costs associated with individual site development, such
As. water` sewer lateral to individual parcels, woulI be added to those costs
Identified in Table 2.1-2•
the fixed and annual costs for required and reen,uehded,mitigation are
presented in 'Table 2.1-3 for four deVelopmest 0enarios '(two for the proposed
projdair. and two for the Expand Project Area Al,ternative). A portion of the
fkkandasexistin
efees l�a:nd futuredbfinedttotheWAtdrjsewer an
be edevelopmentsed as Cal Watr ase000 water system
d storm
drainage system improvements. ,
stet
Methods for equitable distributibn of costs should be defined by Butte County
(refer to Appendix !6.12). Tho, timing of future projects in the area will
create cost variations, particularly with respect to traffic improvements,
Which. are based oo a pro rata share of trips through an intersection or along
a roadway. The cost analysis reflects development conditions ;in 1986.
Threeinstalling improvements
can be used for �.nstallation of improvements.
p ents and collect fees to recapture costs when development
occurs; "2) .install improvements and require paymentsmm
immediately; and 3)
ofltheseaolog esais al000fementi with available money: Some bombihatibh
'money P
The improvements should be installed
as required by the birector of Public Forks for Butte County. Contributions
could be made based on area (aoreage) linea, feet of teodtage, number of rooms
in a dwells"g unit be contribution to impuot (traffib i sewage),
n
2"1
r
e S
' Potential financing mechanist,,,, may include the use. ,of
assessment districts,
redevelopment,, federal and state funding, or direct contributions from
developers and/or property owners. County staff is ;familiar with the
establishment procedures and limits each of this mechanisms.
Assessing
additional property taxes to p:.rcels within a given district that would
benefit from a public works Project is a common tool for financing indiv:(dual
Pr Typically, asses districts are most useful when project casts
p., are relatively limitad, so as not to adversely burden property owners in the
k�A district.
rt 1rolusiOn of the project area within a RedevelopmentArea would allow t
of tax increment financingfor he Use
,freezes tl:Q Propertytax .base at the
This financing method
P
y establishment and allows the
Pedeve"lopment Agency to collect increases in property tax revenue above the
base amount for a specific period of
Years.- The feasibility of redevelopment
would depend specifically on the ability to make specific findings regarding
.area blight the necessitir for redevelopment, :arid the economic feasibility cif
the redevelopment funds to finance needed improvements. The formation of., w
redevelopment area in this location is not being discussed at the present ti.i-Ae
by the city and county.
Several state and federal Sources were created for possible assistance in �h
financing project area improvemettt including Urban Development: Action Grants
(UDAG)) U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (FIUD)'Housir
Assistance, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), gasoline tax Hinds;
Federal Aid Urban (FA'J) Funds, and Economic Development Administration CEDA)
grants. However, UDAd and ED% have already been out and the others may be cut
in the future. Butte County and the City of Chico are currentlyp g
partici titin
in some of these programs. Due to both .the competition and current reductions"'
in the availability of such funding, the pro'p.;wsed improvements should not rely
on a. significant share of 'funding from these programs.
The county could also seek direct contrihilbions'of land and funds from
developers and property owner$ to assir.,.t in finaneing` project aree
improvements that benefit their deve!6,±t,whts and properties. HoNet►er, county
polity .*estriots the formation of benefice assese,,Ient trtgtricts for purposes
other than public health. The extent of developer and p,�operty Owner
' Para-111-ipation is uncertOifi and Probablylimited because 00-gt M incurred would
be p,'Jsed on to future residents throt!nh;,increased purchase prides. High
development costs could jeopardize the feasibility and competitiveness of the
area+s rea,idential develapment: Specific contribution amounts 'would be
subject to negotiations betweenButte County and thb developers or propert
Owners.,
The defining of an equitable distribution of costs between on 'site and oft'
site benefactors is the responsibility of Butte County.
NAT1'VES
Th(r No Project Alternative and the Expanded Project Area Alternative are
evaluated in (Section 4 of thi3 report:. Under the No Project Alternative, riost
OP the impacts of the 0140sed project would be avoided or substantially
reduced. However, the No project Alternative inay not 'be a long term alteraa
tive due to certain existing and planned growth inducing activities Which V.Ul
11
i
TABLE 2.1-1. 9UK4ARY OF PROJECT -IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES.
�,.
MITIGATION MEASUEES
IMPACT
(Significance After'
(Significance)
Mitigation)
id LAND USE, PLANN%NG. APPLICABLE
4 PLA2�1S AND POLICIES
The props.)sed project would encourage
Not mitigable. (S)
the development of approximately 270
hew dwelling units in an area_ of prude
agricultural laid. Loss of this agr-'
t cultural land Mould represent a. 0.375
percent decrease in the total, amount
of county land used. for fruit and nut -
production. This incremental loss aril
;other incremental lasses would be
oonsidered a significant cumulative
" impact at the regional, state and'
national level. (S
2 The proposed project e uld incre«se
The City of Chico and Bt.ute County
the frequency and magnitude of adverse
should support the Chico Area
lard use ompatibilit,Yt it;pacts with
Greenline policy by requiring that:
agricultural activities to the north
1) an Agricultural Uce Notice be
-' ._.. _ �_.Qnt
and hest due to anticipated develope,.
applied to parcels within :200 fea
in the project areao the11.4ical
of the Gr6anline (refer tz'*tutte.
a pattern gf?'and uses subject' to the
County Code Sections 26-8,, -34-i
General Flan Amendment and the
34-2► 34-3 and 34-12 ar d bvjtte
illogical'fo"rmation -of the Greenline•
Agricultural Nuisane�
(S)
inance); 2) new urban
ordinance);
develo mPnt within 200 feet r�i' the
P
Gedohlihe'be set back to the maki-
q
much feasible distance bonsistent
c
with the applicable zoning district
'
Pequi rem6lits (cluster designs
should be encouraged to achieve
this objective)► land 8) specific
performance criteria be met by
agricultural ,)peratians. (Note's:
S Significant (Adverse)
HS Not SighifiC$nt. (A� i.ve'rse)
Ps' Potentially Significant (A.dve'ese)
B Beneficial
(CONTINUED)
2�1
'
TABLE
w
2:1 1 (CONTINUED).
SUMMARY' OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURE;,
r
IMPACT
(Significance)
MITIGATION MEASURES
(Significance
After
Mitigation)
,
Supervisors. Realignments at the
following intersections should be
completed with buildout of the
area: Bell./Muir,
Be11/Nord, Bell/
Gdynnt,Bel"/Alamo..,.and
Rodeo/Nord.
The total cost is 'expected to be
approximately
$6250 if realigny
ments
are coordinated with other -
road improvements
The aPPlicants should be required
to
contribute funds for the
construction of left turn pockets
and for the elimination
of on
street parking along Esplanade at
�lenshaw;,
and alon Esplanade at
Lassen. The total cost for this
improvement is eXpeeted to be
approximately, $70,500. An add(-
--- - tional$f32
would-be required if
signal modifications were
required:
This contribution is a pro rata
share based on the projec.tos
traffic ane rem, ent
compared to the
total traffic volume, and a $15000
cost for signal modification:
The 'aPPlicants should be required
'} to contribute funds for the instaj_.
lation of traffic signals at the
following intersections
(East/Nord,
East/Guynl, East/Cussick.>
and
Nast%Alamo):
The total cost for
these improvements is
axpeeted to
be approkimately Ao The
!1'
Le�
►'125: con- .
i
Adv1.ersr�)
tri blot
Ii
E nifieant
SignificanttAdverse)
iAd verse) $
nenefieial
��oNrl�rt��n)
TOLE 21-1-1 (CONTINUED).SUMMARY OF
PROJECT IMP.'+CT,S AND MITIGATION MEASURES
j 1�
MITIGATION M3ASURES
IMPACT
(Significance After
(Signifidance)
Mitigation)
tribution
is a pro rata share based
r
on the ;project's traffic increment
compared to the total traffic
volume.
The applicants should be required
y�
to contribute funds for wid�-ning
East Avenue to
allow forireianes
(central continuous left` -'urn
lane). This requirement would
involve a 13 foot widening from
Alamo half way to Guynn .and a 26,
}
foot widening -from. SR 32 half' way
to Guynn. Sidewalks, curbs and
gutter6 would not be required of
the applicants, but a pro rate
contribution of funds (based on
traffic) for a storm drainage
cUlvert would be required. The
tbt;�.l cost for these improvements
is expected to be $1321643. (NS)
Accessh
by emergency (large
See previous mitigation measures
,.fire truoks) Would be hindered by
for _interseetion realignment. (NS),
unconventional. interseotions=; (NS)
The proposed project would allowThe
applicants should be required
�
development alottg narrow' substandard
to improve roads in the projedt
roa dsi (Pg)
area to the standard set by the
Butte County Planning Commission
4nd Board of Supervisors+ The
Oplioable standard would be SRS -1
if the oounty requires minimum
paroel sizes equal to or greater
than 1.001 acres (rural development
...
S Sig"rificait (Adverse)
ISS Not Significant (Adverse)
PS Potentially :significant (Adverse)
9 Benefio al'
(CONTINUED)
2-8
CI
1�S8L'R 2.1-1 (CONTINUED).; SUMMARY OF
PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION HEASURBv
MITIGATION P29SU44ES
IMPACT.
(Significance After
(Significance)
Mitigation),
,
standards). The applicable stand-
ard for 10 acrePa reels and urban
standards is RS -2, which includes
sidewalks; curbs and gutters (storm
drainage infrastructure). The,
timing for the required improve-
.
ments standards should be
determined by the Butte County
Board of Supervisors
improvements to the following
roadway segments should be cot-
pleted with buildout of the area:
Muir, from SR 32 to Bell,
Rodeo from Muir to Henshaw, Nord,
Guynn and Alamo from. Bell to Shst
'
and Henshaw from Nord to Alamo,
The City of Chico Would request
that these roadc:ays meet standards
of the city or county, whiohever
a,Ie more stringent. The total cost
is expected to be approkimately
$^1,144025 to achieve the SRS-A
standard and *2,262,825 to achieve
the RS -2 standard. (NS)
The proposed project would have an
Butte County and the City of Chico
incremental. imaaat on area wide
should acquire appropriate funding
§ traifio oonditon-3+ M)
from developers, FW and' ULTRANS
for long range traffic improV6ment
programs as required by the County
Circulation Element and CATS. (P:
S I' Signifidant (Adverse)
PS Not Significant (Adverse)
PS potentially Signilieant (Adverse) B Beneficial
(:cotiTi�v�D)
2-9
I
20LE 2,1=1 (CONTINUED)., SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
r IMPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES,
_
Significance')
(Significance After
Mitigation)
6 )
I" J`kae feasibility and desirability of
a Lassen h :Ave
the Extension through
The City of Chico and Butte County
the pro,jeet site would be altered by
should review the Chico Urban Area.
Transportation Study's recommends-
;tha proposed project, (PS)
tion for extending Lassen .Avenue
- West to state Route 32 (Funding .for
r
�
such an improvement would be
difficult without further density
increases or an areawide funding
°
district). If this proposal is
determined to be a long range
requirement, Butte County should
require property dedications of
right of way prior to development
in the area. (NS)
The proposed project would allow
incremental 1
,Site design criteria .which
increases in the demand
for raps t service :for the CATS Route
increase o '
opportunities for transit
1 and along the, East Avenue Corridor.
(NS)
Patronage Should be encouraged. if
specific, development proposals were
P .
to involve clusters of development.
(Ns)
14 The proposed land use intensification
would encourage
Access to the future extension of
Road which resents thenpotentialaton
Road hould providedbe
Be1lnRoad sInterseG�tiosvia
t make Nord,, Guynn and-Alamo major north/
With Nord .
Guynn and Alamo should not ba
.outh connectors, (PS) IencouRged
Unless" additional .land`
Use intensification
and related
roadway improvements b6dur prion
to extensionof these roadways,
(NS)
w increased existing corfliot9 between
ti'QycIlesy pedestrians,
The'Chico Unified School District
#,
and motor
a Vehicles _along East avenue. (Ps)
should mitigate safety impacts
related to
,'ledestrian and bicylp
�I
9S Significant (Ad Nerse)
NS Not Signlfiv, --t (Adverso
P8 Potentially SignificAnt{Adverse)
B tene%icial.
�
(CONT U
2-1G
17, 71 V�
fiABLE x,1'_1 (CONZ'INU,6D) , SUMM,ARY'. OF'PRO.,IECT
IMPACTS 'MITIGATION
AND MEAMiES
1
IMPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES
(Significance)
(Significance After
Mitigation)
cro
ssings near Jay Partridge
School. Paid
erossin
be used to g guards could
mitigate existing an,d
PtO-without-thejeCted `safety conditions with or
GEOLOGY/HY POL0GY
proposed pro�iec; . (PSS
"soils
Site and geology present a'
moderate shrink/swell p,,)tential,
Specific engineering design
moderate allowable sail pressure,,
Iow
and
eonstructict: techniques rgn aha '
erosion potential, and seismic
f�azards. (PSj
mended by the soils en should
be incoaporatedo
as needed into
the project design. Building
design should 11omply with "seismic
requirements cif the
current
Uniform Building Code and th,�
Recommended
Lateral Force
Requirements
prepared by the
Structural EAssociation -
Califo"rnia. ofngineers
Standard construction methods and
erosion control, measures
should be
implemented-(includin� dr
g Y heather
season gradingo erosion control
plans, revegetation,
and devices to
retain sediment within the
oon-
steuetion area) to minimize
pntetaial erosion impacts.
Foundatidn supports and 'utilities
should be designed, to
resist and
withstand earthq�fake induced ground
shaking; (NS):
5 53gnifi,aant (Adverse) NS
PS 98
Potentially .8.1 (�dverse)
Not. Sigi�ifi,i7ant (Advcrse)
g•
Eenefdial
(CONTINUED)
2-11
A
r,
j`
I
TABLE z -1-+1 (CONTINUED).
ED) . SUMMAR!l OF PROJECT IMPACTIS AND MITIGA'"C;,J MEASURES,
MITIGATION MEA SURES
IMPACT
(Significance After
(Significance)
Mitigation)
titrate contamination of groundwater
Groundwater quality monitoring, as
tram septic tanks could be increased
outlined in the Nitrate Action
os a result of development allowed by,
Plant, should be continued to
i tb#, proposed project. (PS)
detect potential groundwater
j
�
quality impacts and to identify and
implement appropriate mitigation,
PUBLIC SERVICES
if q.ecessary (NS)
AND :UTILITIES.
i
Development of 'parcels allowable under
A minimum of one new well and. a
the proposed project wouldrequire
Pressurized water system will be
.86,400 gallons of water per day. (PS)
required in the area: A11 Cal
Water requirements shall be met.
hh
St
Tile required Well and Hater system
will
�
cost approximatel $7 5
Y 000. 7 ,
(NS)
1hF
`ro osed project Would indirectly
If septic tanks were to bP'u'tilized
1} allow additional sewage to be generated 6
permanently on_the project site,
`In the project areas The sewags
the Giity of Chico and Butte County
treatment method has not been pr�
should yak e a formal decision on
the project applicants. Sept'c
,pased
the allowable density of ,develop=
,by
tangs or sewers may be possible, but
a d.eterin3nation of the appropriate
went that, 'could, occur on the Bell
---Ztuir
method for waste disposal�cannbt be
prroperty withbuti adversely
affecting potential nitrate con-
made until, policy clarifications
taminatibn. The density, of the
related to the nitrate Action Plan
development allowable on the site
and sewerage have been hade by the
should conform to this decision.
City of Chico and Butte Cbunty. (PS)
The data required to make ,this
determination should be defined by
the Regional, mater Quality 'Control
Board: The required data will
probably include grbuhdwator
samples and other data from nest Arid
S Significant (Adverse) R's
Not Significant (Adverse)
PS Potentially Significant (Adverae): B
Benefioia3
(CONTINUED)
2_13
J
Yll
,
•t ,
'TABLE 2.1-1 (CANT,INUED). SU HKARY OF
PROJECT I14PACT4 .AND MITIGATION MEASURES
_ y
r
MITIGATION M�;ASUR
IM,°ACT
Af ter
(Significance)
I:
l�iitigationce
f
existingof
;t�_ls in the project
l
vicinity.
If the densitydecision on indicates
that the proposed .density .is, too-
high,the
puoonCtheodpvad
grequitementPP
contingentP
that a sewer hookup be installed
within a time period defined by the
city and county. This contingent
approval should not be made unless
the engineering and financing for
the required sewer extension were
1
approved by the city and county and
the time frame would prevent
adverse impacts to groundwater
contamination in the area by
a
nitrates.
If sewer lines Ve.t to; be connectod
to the project area, the county
could -approve the proposed General
Dlan Amendment and allow develop
inept Contingent upon a sewer
hookup. l3ngineer ng and finanoi ag
for the future system would 'have t_o
be a rovisd by the city and county
pp
prior to tiny development to assure
that the system was feasible.. (PS)
beveloptent of additional residential
Butte County should consider ctfmu-
uses would 1haremeatally increase the
lative demands for police services
de4and for pollda services. (PS)
and develop ,an appropriate funding
mechanism, such as an assessment
district to maintain future :level
S Significant (Adverse)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
pS Pbteht ally Significant (Adverse)
B beneficial
(CONTINUED)
E
, -
TABLE 2.1-1 (CONTINUED) SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
f
KITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT
(Significance After
(Significance)
!litigation)
of service standards. (The
feasibility of thea mitigation
measure is questionable because
{
recent efforts by the county to
raise revenues for this purpose
have been denied by voters,)
)
Butte County should consider
I
requiring developers of the peo,jec•t
area to pay for the incremental!.
�.
impact '($28,600) per year on
police services created by the
proposed General Plan Amendment.
F
(PS)
IJDevelopment of residential uses in the
Butte County utill collect $75 per,
;project area would increase the,demand
ol,upon the Butte County Fire DEpartme.nt,
nevi parcel in: the "West Chico FirA
Station Benefit Area" to gain
and, the luck of fire hydrants in the
funds to build a new fire station
-
area Mould create -.a significant fire
�r safety (S)
- that Will serve the project area.
.hazard.
Butte County should seek additional
},
voiunteers to operate Station 42
'
until Station 43 is constructed:
A pressiAtized Water system should
be installed to conform to Butte
i
Count Fire Department re uite
q
'
ments Y
Hydrants should be ,placed in
appropriate locations according to
bounty standards defined on page 5 ,
of the Butte County mj)roVement,
Standards for Subdivisions, Parcel
S Significant (Adverse)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
Pt Potentially Significant (Adverse)
B Beneficial
(CO�iTIt�UED:)
215
r
1 ,
f s
TABLE, 2 . t,i CoNTIN�)ED) . 8 Wi 1
( RY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND 'MITIGATION `MEASURES
r �
IMPACT
MITIGATION MEASURES
(Significance,)
B )
(Significance. After
Mitigation)
Jiaos and Site Improvements Pursuant
w Cha ter 20
of the Butte Counter
1: -ode. (N5)
The capacity of Neal Dow School would
be exceeded with` the addition of the
Project area developers should tie
students, expected to be generated b Y
development
required to place a notation on
Final Maps,
in
_P project area. (S)'
when filed, stating
that issuance
;the of residential,
building permitsi rdobile home
installations or hookup permits'
for residential ,dwelling units
is subject to the payment of
school fees pursuant to Butte
County Ordinance No. 2163
,and
Res01'uti6n No. 85-40. The ,reeehtly
approved fep will mitigate projaet
}
related impacts. See .Appendix �fi.10
for estimating fee. The school
district is interested_ in begoti, -:
sting With, the-
applicant;
for land declieaticject
on for a new
elObidbtary school site in ilk Of,
the f-xed fee. (NS)
Net? residential devel,opinent in the
project area wouldinctiQase storm
See ai,tigat on for Geology andHydralogc
*pater runoff and the remand for
impacts.
drainage capacity. (PS)
j
p � �
The Project Would increase the demand
for road taaintenane.r� on underdeveloped
Butte County should implement the
Circulation
roadways in the ea,
Project ar (PS`)
Elemerj'ti Policy to
develop a system
of off situ
development fees and or devel,opmeat
agreem.ennts for road construet:ion
and meintehance to all6v project
S ;Significant (Adverse) NS
S Patentiall Si niflC�int Adverse')
y g
Not Si ni,P
g ieano (Adverse)
B
Beneficial
(CONTINUED)
2—i6
4
JJfBLE 2.1-1 (WNTINVED). B—VMMARY OF PROJECT 'IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONMEASURES
MITIGATION MEASURES
IMPACT
(Significance After
�Y
(Significance)
Mitigation)
i
area roadways, to be widened and
upgraded as future development
occv-rs. The annual road mainten-
ance fee would be approximately
#7162'7. (ITS)
;Development allowed under the proposed
None feasil)le. (S)
_iproject wou?d`incrementally increase
}
<tbe: demand for library services which,
fare already operating below adequate
zervice levels. (S)
`,The proposed project would have a,
Butte County should': adopt a funding
=inor incremental ,impact on parks and
program four parks and recreation
.
xecr.eational facilities which would be
facilitiR;r as part of theNatural;
�
oumulati#ely significant. (PS)
Resources and: Recreation 1. Element
'
of the County General Plan.
(Adverse)
NS Not Significant (Adverse)
P5Significant
Potentially Significant (Adverse)
B b6heticial
(CONTiN+.T��D)
2--17
r
i t
Y�I
i
a MMARY OF APPRQXIMATE COST FOR REQU::b ,ED AN'D
'TABL-E,�^ x , f
'RECOMMENDED:
MITIGATION
EXPANDED PROJECT
PROPOSED PROJECT
(270 UNITS.)
AREA ALTERNATIVE
(350 NEW UNITS)
ITEM
NEW
County Road Improvement
l�1
Standards.
SRS-1
$1,144,125
$1j1440--
r. f
RS-2
$2;262,825
$2;262,825
Roadway Realignments -
_ $6,2510 -
$6;P50
l
�.
Traffic S{finals
$40,125
„ $50j,630
Left Turn Pockets and Parking
$2i,132
$21x266
Reat"rictions
i
Widen East Avenue
$132,643
$132nG4yj
!�
Storm Drainage Infrastructure
$44 592,1,33 (b)(e)
$4,592,1.3.3 (b')
Storm Drainage MAIntenance Fee
$5/year (a)
$5/;year
Connection to Sewer
$3,190,500 (b_)
$3 0256,g50 Cb) p
Domestic hate..K and Fire Flow
Sstems
y- (a)
X775,000 (a;) (b)
$775,0001 (b)
jj
Police Protection
$28,000/year
$36,200irYear
Fire Protection
$20,250
$2,P50
Schools
$60T,500.y
$78"i ,500
Road Maintenance (d)
$7;627/year
$762711rear
(a) Cal Water Would purchase the water system $175`,000
from the applicaaCs
at 2.5 percent over 40 years,
(b) A proportion of this cost could
be reoaptured if services/capacity
provided to other. parcels.
(e) Not required with SRS"1 standard POr RoadWays
(d) Costs for pari or6bting guards shbUld not be peojeot bpeoilfio costs.
Source. Earth Metrics thdorparate&,
1986 and 1061; Tuttieo 1986► Edell,
1986, B1 rd, ton `
��g84Hat�kins,.1.996;.Hensley,
1987;
and
Rolls, Andersg$��anlRolls;lert
r�
-- ya
EFFECTS DETERMINED TOP SIG14IFICANT OR POSSIBLY SIGNIFICAtiT:
EnISTING SETTING IMPACTS A2iD MITIGATION MEASURES
I3 1 LAND USE. PLANNItIG,, APPLICABLE PLANS AND POLICIES
tmSTING SETTING
', Lat7d Uses. Land in the project area is used for agricultural and residential
purposes. The primary agricultural uses in the area are orchards, but other
1y:t 5 such as pasture land and vineyards are present. Residential uses are
located throughout ,the project area. Clusters of dwelling units are located
in tour locati'onsi (1) along the west side of Rodeo Drive; (2) along the +asst
end of Muir Avenue; (3). along the south half of Nord Avenue; and (4) along
Beal Road near Guynn Avenue.
1aad uses'surr.ounding the project area are similar .to those within the 'project
area; however, residential uses increase in frequency and density to the south
and east The ma_a Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad line
farms the project site's western boundary The railroad 'tracks are lobated
�+,arallel to State Route 32. Industrial and commercial land uses have been
' developed along both sides of State Route 32 we;tt of the project area. Large
parcels narth of the project area are used for agricultural purposes.
Agri cultura2�Character of the Project, Area and. Vicinity. The project area and
Vicinity contain highly productive srils These soils and other factors, such.
as climate and the availability of iuetpensive, and higb quality water, combine.
to, 'make 'this area and :much of Butte County highly conducive to agriaUIUre.
The: continued: viability ,Of,agriculture, the county's biggest i.ndus'try, is a
City, of the Butte,
vital component of the countye,,s economy. Both f agriculture --and address the
County General Plans recognize the importance of ag
issue with specific land use planning policies and procedures. 1A primary land
use; planning tool, the city/bounty Greenline policy, is described in a
following discussion entitled Plans and Policies.
The project area burrently produces almondsi walnuts, paeans, kitai, feijoa;
and other agrioultural products (see Table. 3.1-1). The project area (2,70
abres) represents 0.375 percent of the total fruit and nut aoreage in Butte
County., The 1130 aore area represents 4.597 percent of the total fruit and nut
acreage in Butte County.
The character of the agricultupAi ?ands within the project, area is typical of
agribultural lands on the edge of urban arfeas. The incremental direct and
activity are affecting the economic viability of
,> r f urban y
0
indirect imp
�Ct;3 '�
agricultural production. The 'following direct and indirect impacts a�feit the
Viability- of agriculture. on the project site and increase the incentive for
property owners to discontinue agricultural production in order to capitalize
c can be realized by' urban eevelogment;
smaller the short `term economic gain whiopery values, urban nuisances, such as
aller parcel sizes; increasing pr
v'- ! agricultural aetiv tes on 'urban uses, such as the .
andalism and impacts of
application of pesticides and the generation of dust, smoke atd noise.
Although these impacts are affecting agricultural tfbds on tFro site, they have
not prevented productive u
se of the project area for agriculture to tho
present time.
3.1-1
�j ^_�~ — ,,.,�„ r--��i'-...-.. � '�– yam•--` _� ��_"" F �' '
� a'"""' L— �..���,u'�•-�-Ja_��-��` =-3..-+1C�.-.-'..its .ter♦♦1 �+u� �4
� � ✓ F t. `." � _ rte•„ �'�...�'r-�",�, � �\ �'" �t`l
���� ter--,= :..`..'_ - �,,,,� yi. .�.-� �•
r p
e� r
�.,•;�,, PROJ LOT S`IT
w
• • i
.—� —. may--wr,�.— •�� l•�� • • • • • • • • • • •
W—:..�"+W Fvcs� =.,ice"• -=r Y`�
SCALE
VC = 2000,
ii.F F
1
• ti,r. ` n�.�c
yJ
mEntim DENSITV RESIb'EFNTIAL
0RCVAAb AND PIELD CROPS
LN IIENSITY RESIMNTIAL,
I14D113TRIAL
AGRICULTt1RAL RESIDE'XTIAL
CONYtACIAL
u r ti PUBIJIt
?±IGitRE 3. i"I 01TX AND COUINV CE;U t:AL
PLAN LAND UM DESIGNATIONS
IN �}1E Pt'OJE�„T VICINI`T�`
f1
1 r
soil 6orditions well suited for Plant: ar.op opei,°ations,•
adequate water supply,
predominant
` parcel production or secondares ar mare;
used forcra ry u,ges; and
z adjacent uses compatible with primary and seconda,4y uses.
The three conditional zoning and development j
Field Crop uses are:
P_m. t criter„a for the `Orchard and
predominate existing parcel sizes range from 5 to 10 acres
adjacent to orin the general vicinity of urban boundaries;present status of agricultural production w;111 not be significantly
impaired.
The six zoning factors .for the Orchard and Field Crop uses are.-
existing
re:existing 'parcel sizes and: dweling densitie,a;
proximity to urban development;
effects on adjacent uses;
Potential for pest insect breeding;
economic W abilityu
local desires.
The protijo t site's existing Orchard and Field. Cropdesi
consistent with the five primary criteria for designating athe nsite@and toartiebu
three conditional zoning and development eriteri•r.
P However) the designal:ion
may not be consistent with two of the six zoning factors (economic viability
and local dosires). Economic viability was discussed previously under, rs.
heading „Agricultural Character of the Project Area and Vicinity". if "local
'l desires„ include the desires of local property owners, then the existing
designation is clearly inappropriate relative to this factor because the
project applicants are all local property owners.
�, Zonin
The project area is subject to the requirements of the Butte County
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Number 1756. The Butte County zoning map
indicates that the requirrdmehts of two zoning districts, (A-5) ,AgricUl:tUre and
Suburban Residential, apply to the area within the dark border in Figure
3.1-2 The parcels affected by the
proposed General Plan Amendment are within
the A -S District. The requirements �of thi8s zone Are presented in'Appen(iix
16.4. Permitted uses ate consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of TMOrchard and Field Crop", The minimum lot area required is
five acres (see, the previous discussion o
zoning factors). f zoning and dev@lc`)pment criteria and
Urban eyela went TreL'io._,,-; and Patterns. Urban development in the ;( h:loo area
h'as been directed with publio and private i0estt6nt to properties within the
e�;iatitrg urban area acid to locations earth, south and east of the city core*
th, addition to this investment, the Nitrates Action Plan for the Greater Chito
UJ,°ban Area also encourages development in the existing urban area,
particularly within thbse areas served by the city'ts sanitary,:
@weL SyiteGr.
The i,itr,at@ Aotion Plan recc it 0ds that developEuent be limited in areas
Without- sewer connections (Butte County and 'City :of Chico,
3.14
4
13
i
e Two large private projects, Foothill Park and Rancho Arroyo, have been
appro*.ted in northern Chico., The Foothill Park development includes .551 acrel,
or' residential and office uses (3,200 dwelling units,, 15 percent have been
aold) and 244 acres of industrial uses (Palmeri, 1985). The Rancho Arroyo
project includes 750 acres of residential uses (Moo dwelling units#;none
have been sold at this time) and 25 acres of commercial uses (Palmeri_, 1985)•
I)ovelopment in southeast Chico has included residential, commercial and light
lodustrial uses, Primarily south.of State Route 32 and east of Park Avenue.
Development west of Chico has been directed towards infill of existing parce3s.
planned for urban uses by local planning efforts,, the lack of sewer service
o.bnnections, and the City/county Greanline,. However, large parcels of
underutilized land are available for developotentwithin the existing Chico
Area Oreenline
1,985p-,cdordin to state Department of Finance was approximately ril 29 in
The population of the: incorporated area of Chico
` - g p calculations dated.April 29, '
'985. The 1985 population accounted for approximately 44 percent of the total
population of incorporated areas of Butte County and 14 percent of the total
county population in 1985 (see Appendix 16.7). A summary report of controlled
county population estimates for January 1, '1985, including breakdowns by
housing. unit type, estimated vacancy rates, and the average number of ,persons
per household for inci5rporated and unincorporated areas in Butte County, is
presented 1n Appendix 16.8. The population of the incorporated and
unincorporated "Chico'Areat, was approximately 64,000 persons in 1985 and was
estimated to increase to 102,000 by the year 2000 and to 171,000 after
buildout of the General Plan Land Use Map, according to the Chico Urban Area
Transportation Study prepared in 1982: Table 3.1-2 presents a more recent
populationforecast for buildout of the Chico Area.
The 1x pulation of the project vicinity defined as the. area :north 'and west of
;Bell Road, Cussick Ave.huef Lindo Channel (Traffic Zone 30 of the ;Chico Urban
Area Traffic Study) is; axpected to increase from 2,006 persons to 2,114 by the
year 2000 (Chico Urban Area Transportation Study, 1982).
Maris and -Po licies
CHICO AREA GREENLING. The City of Chino and Bu'tt'e t6Unty have established a
boundary to define the limits of future urban d6velop,nent which may ocetyr an
agrioultural lands in the Chico area of Butte Ct>unty. .The Greenline is
delineated in Figure 3.1-'i. The project site i,z not includod within the urban
bnundary line, but has been designated as ffStudy Area N'amber 1," The "Study
Area^'designation Would allbV the C60nty Da3rd of Supisrtisors to approve a
Greenline Amendment by a simple majority, Voi,n. In oth•ei• cases the
supervisors; after making; appropriate findings and providing .a simple majority
vote, could ,revise the locatiotr of the ChicoArea Ueeenl,ine so as to place the
parcels outside of the lkieenline in the urban portion of the CLico.Area
Greenling, The ;special policies and procedures related toL the Greenline, as
described in the Butte 10burity c3eneral Plan would not apply to any amendments
related to this area. The Chico Area Greenlitie Policy is presented in Appendix
13.56 The purposes of the policy and procedures for amendment and review o''
the Greenlihe are summalized as follows.
Purposes of'deden,,ine y. The purposes of the Chico Area Greenlrine
p 1 Policy.
are
f
31-5
s
z
;.
TABLE'.1-2. PROJ,iXTED BUILDOUT
POPULATION OF;TFiB.I CHTCO
AREA BASED ON THE
CHICO GENEPAL PLAN
LAND t MAP
i
LAND USF: TOTAL
DESIGNATION ACRES
NUMBER OF
WELLING Ut1T;v5
TOTAL 'NUM$,6R
PER A CRE
OF
DWELLING UNITS
Agricultural/ 12, 88,3
1
1298.8
Residential
j
i
Lost Density 7,1107,.0
3 (a')
2?_,221a)
Residential
r,.
6 (b)
44,412 (b)
Medium Density
w Residential. 709.4
13
9,P22
High Density
Residential 854.7
20
17.OQ>}
TOTAL 21,956.4
610525 (a)
83,746 (b)
Total Number
Household,
■
of Dwellin a
units.
Formation
Buildout
actor
Population-
61,525 ('a)
61,525 (a)
2:263 (c)
139j231 (a)
83,746b)
2.536
2:263
156,027 (a)
83,746 ('b)
2.536
189,57.7 Cb)
212,379 Cb)
ia) Maximum density on septic tanks
(b) Maximum density on sewer l system rvwh rate:
g 3 1,21
{c) AVerAgel household formation factor for incoirporattid
etwen
p t per year
Chido ►s defined
Department. of Finance
,by
Average household formation
factor for Butte County
as defined` by
Department of Finance
SoUxicet Tattle; 1986.
t
a) To define the limits of future urban develo mint Which
p may oocur on
agricultural lands in the Chico air•ea of Butte County.
`b) To ,
provide for the long term'protection of agricultural resources of
the Chico area of Butte County.
c) To mitigate the threat to agricultural resources posed by urban!
encroachment into and conversion of agricultural lands in the Chico
area of Butte County.
d) To reduce
agricult;rraljurban conflicts in the Chico area of Butte
County,
y
e) To establish Count cooperation�With the Cit of Chico in land Use
Planning... of urban and agricultural lands located in the Chico area
of. Butte County.
f) 10 identify urban development litmits in or nearricultural, lands
within the coUntyl;s Chico area Land Use `Plan by use of a certain
bold dashed boundary line,
"r g) To establish a certain and clearlic
po y text for Butte Cbuntyzs
Chico Area Land Use Element which will enhance and uphold the
aforementioned boundary line_an,d policy text:
h) To establish certain land "use designations for the Chico area of
Butte County in conformity with the aforementioned boundary line and
policy text.
-� Procedures for Amendment of the Greenling Policy: The Butte County
Board of Supervisors may amend the Chico Greenline Policy through a
majority vote after adopting written findings of ftict,, Upported by
substantial evidence in the public; record, showing tht. folloving
(a) that the public benefits Of converting the agricrli tUral land to
urban land substantially outweigh the public`s belnefits of
continued agricultural production; and
(b) thore are ;no other urban or suburban. lands r,easbnablia available:
and suitable for the proposed development.
Procedures for P.eview of the Greenline .Policy. The 0reeniine. Policy
states that the location of the Gireenliiie Mali be'ria iewed and
evaluated every five years to insilre that lijcal land,use needs of the
Chico area are being met. The fixlnt review of the policy is due in.
1987. HOWL -Vert the policy also states that an individual may,petitiolj
the Board 6t Supervisors for General Plan Amendment, including a
change in'tlre location of the Greenling, in accordance with the
applicale ,lags and policies Of Butte County'and the State of Califoriaia
(see Appendix 18,5).
A. file AND: COUNTY' GBttEPAt, PLAN A0It8jNd EL, h SENT
The City of 'Chico and Butt
County have adopted Housing E 'ements as part of their Geneftl Plan`s. The
Prima
ry measure to imleiaent the 3�0
p using Element is the Getideal Plan Land.Use,
3,A--8
q
Ci
Oap, which' reserves lands for residential uses. The City of Chico Housing
Element defines the policies, programs, and recommendations related to the
ppp.vision of housing in that city. The following .text from. the city's Housli g
Element was oda ted t
P o summarize Chico housing ;policies.
In planning for the provision of housing for all present and future Chico
residents, :the city's primary goal, is *o
types in an atmosphere conducive to the provide for a variety of housing
yP P e well being of ;city residents, and
particularly to provide for an ►.equate supply of housing rang3rig in cost
to meet the demands of students, low and moderate income persona, the
special needs of the elderly, and handicapped, and to provide an
opportunity for first titlo :home buyers.
'The Housing Element recognizes the zonstraints of today's housing market
such as building costs, mortgage interest rates, the preservation' a
ageicultural land, provision of sanitary sewers,'storm`drainage tend
stroets, the provision of other .public services such as police and fire
protection, school facilities and parks, concern for design, preservation
of neighborhoods :and historical structures, as well as Concern for energy
conservation within housing units: The Housing Element states that all
of these factors must be considered in concert with one another, and no
single item can be emphasized at the expense of another if Chico is to
pursue a balanced. and realistic approach to the provision of housing for
current and future Chico resident's (City of'Chico 1985).
The Butte County Housing Element also defines policies, Pro rams- and
recommendations related to the provision of. housing, The followin
apply to the project area. g policies
- A governmental framework shall be established and maintained which
eneouiages and facilitates maximum performance of the private
homabti3Yding industry in aoc6mmodating, the housing needs of the county's
currectt and projected iOpulation:
- Pgand zoning considerations affecting housing production shall be
appliedin a mannet, which seeks to balance the need for protecting and.
enhancing the environment with the need for housing at affordable
prices;:
New housing construction shall be encouraged in locations with
reasonable proximity to centers of employment and shopping facilities,
abd which respect the eornservation of energy. `The private homebuilding
industry shall be encouraged' to give priority oohsideration'to
developing within existing urbanized areas or in looat ons adjacent to
such areas ('Butte County, 1984):
OTHER PLANS ANi2 POLICIES. Numerous plans and policies apply to land "use
pUnning proems such as the,proposed General Plan Amendment. -plans, atirl
policies appl.I!,eable �,o the proposed pftjOdt Ibblude those d.isoussed previt>usl4,
U this seetioin and thy:folloowi►ig. the ongoingHrown and Cti<ldwell sewerage
drainage, piafi.�, school service, meds studies, the Chi Urban Area
Transpor a ion tmat;ionlafi (LAPCO)8Plansefortte nSph' • County f 1nfStiencon i.n. BiYtte bo cal
Agehoy F ergs oCirculation Element the Le
the Nitrate Aot3oi� Plan, `Ttie 'Tana and unty and
P policies related to seweri drainage
�I
and school services and the Nitrate Action Plan are 'discussed in Seat�gri 30�!
of the EIR. 'CATS and the Butte County 'Circulation Element are dgsoussed iri
Section 3.2 of. the EIR:
;Tfre, LAFCO Spheres of Influence" include areas within the formal City limits
afd planning areas beyond those limits that L
AFCO has
defined. The Sphere of
Influence boundaries are guided by many, factors including the boundary of an
orrban area. The City of Chico's Sphere of Influence line is ;equivalent to the
,Chico Area Gr~eenline in the project vicinity. This equivalence indicates
LAFCp's intention to support the Greenline as defined by the City and County,
T,M :CTs
larid. Uses, The proposed General Plan Amendment would not directly affect
existibg, developed land uses; however, it would encourage private property
owners to subdivide prime agricultural land for residential developments A.
maximum of 270 new residential units could be allowed in the project area if,
the project is approved (Tuttle, 1985). Without approval of the project, only
' 20 additional residential units could be developed in the project area.
'Loss of Agricultural Land. The incremental loss of the prime agricultural
land in the project area would represent a 0.375 percent decrease in the: total
amount of county land used for .fruit and nut production. This incremental
loss would not be considered significant os1 a countywide basis. However, this
increment and other incremental. losses are contributing to cumulative loss of
agricultural land at the regionalf state and national levels. At the regional
level, cumulative agricultural impacts and the loss of agricultural land are
reducing maximum potential yields of agricultural products to the point where
the economic feasibilit
y of agricultural activities or support services, such
as ,processing, packaging and tran9portation, are being threatened« _Once_-
regional production reduces to certain threshold levelsi support services may
be relocated, service costs may increase, or services may be reduced. These
i&�pacts in Butte County would be considered cumulatively significant due to
the importance of agriculture to the kiegional economy.
' Further losses of agricultural lanl'could occur as a result Of increased land
use compatibility impacts, as discussed -in the following 'section and in
Section 6, Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Action: Section 4.2,
Expanded Project Area Alternativot addresses the agricultural impacts of a
General Plan Amendment which includes all of the parcels in the proj,0,;t area.
LAND U89 COMPATIBILITY« The conversion of additional agricultural land to
residential uses Mould increase the frequency and magnitude of existing Land
use incompatibility within and adjacent to the project area. Those
agricultural parcels which are contiguous to the eonvarted land 'iiould be most
affected '(see Figure 1.1-3) 110wever, the general encroachment of urban uses
Presents cumulative land use compatibility impacts along the Chido Area
Greenline. Inoreased nuisances (vandalism and theft of agricultural property
and ageidulttiral activities, such as applications of pesticides and the
generation of dust, smoke and 11bise) would increase the potential for
conversion of other agricultural land, to urban uses. The application of
agridultUhal use notices Mould 'inform future land owners of potential.
problems) butWould nat initigate incompatibility impacts. Agricultural
buffers would not, be prat, -tical On a parcel by parcel basis, However;
r
t+0icultural'buf t0rl and use notices should be utilized by the City and County
along the Chico Area Greenline as a.losag range
:noompatitiility. The appropriate g Program. to reduce :land use
ppro riate buffer Program must be developed on a case
by case Wais using some combination of the following mechanisms: setbacks,
detign constraints (cluster housing), PhYsica~ barriers, such as roadways,
Ponces and vegetation; and performance criteria, such as limits on nuisance
80neration (noise, chat, smoke, etc.). Recommendations are provided under,
1111�igation Measures in this sr etion.
P,lahned Land Uses. The proposed project wound revise the General. Plan Land
Uur designations on the -affectedarcels.
properties and P The designation of adjacent.
Properties almost surrounded by the affected parcels would 'not
bo changed. The resulting land use pattern would not be logical or stable
compared to a project involving all of the ;,parcels in the project area or a
project with better boundary delineation, such as roads o
r crection
eks (see `Se
"49xpanded Project Area and Section 6 Growth Inducing Impacts)„
The new land use designation for the project area would be °Urban:
Agricultural: Residential" with one acre minimum parcel sizes. The applicable
zoning designation could be SR -1 (see Appendix 16:4). The impact
s associated
`with these revisions to planned land uses are the subject of this :report. The
primary impact related to this land use planning decision involves the effects
of wastewater disposal: (see Section 3.4, Public Services and 'Utilities)`-.
bsequ �pment 'Trends and Patterns. The proposed General: Plan Amendment
and sub�ecluent development of residential uses in the project area could
result in the development Of UP to 270 additional residential units and
pProxi.�.tely 648 persons (at 2.'4:persons per dwelling :unit).. Develo ent in,
y
,his area would not be consistent with the ci;ty's_intent to -encourage- -
developmenL in other lOdAtib s in the Chico Urban hrea. The addition of 648
persons to the project area (Traffic 2One 30) would exceed the Population
P ojecated in the Chico Urban Area Transportation Study by approximately 3't
percent of the population projected for the
e year 2:000 and would represent a
x fold increase in the Projectednumberof people to be added in this zone
by the year 2000 (648 vs. 106). AlthpUgh the addition of the 648 persons to
the project vicinity would not be considered a significant adverse impact, the,
,expansion of the housing market into rime ural land at the expense 'of'
P agricult
focusing; development in other areas with existing sewer connections would be
considered a signfficant, adverse planning inconsistency (see following
discussion on the ,Chico Area. 'G,reenline)
L'hico Area Green tnp.
Approval of the proposed General Plan.Aaendment would
require relocation of the Chico Area Greenline within Study Ariiba Number 1
The change is shown in 1 3gure '3.1-3• The new "linen would ftollow the
perimeter of the properties subject to the General Plan "OhI 6hte This new
I, lite would be illo'g,ca1 and wduld not serve the intended putIpoie of the
Greenline Policy. A mor.: log;lcal lime should be considde- to avoid adverse,
iapacts associated with the proposed line,. This relooatidn, of the Chico Area:
Greenline does not require suppot�t by substantial evidence in 1, public
record record shoo
showing that the public benefits of converting the agricultural land to
urban land substantially outweigh the public b�:nefits of continued
agricultural prodiietion; and that there are no other urhan or suburban lands
reasonably available and suitable for the proposed developm
Land uses). ent (see impacts on
3.1_1j
i
.mow i y 1 I \�✓N
.r• t t �
=t
, 1
_ � 1�- „ "a , .y;^t. tr IJr rlj,r ••� Malt � lat .rt.':s`.' .k
1.
z�r, T .:tii7 LL 5 � 1 t. T 1 t t4 1 e 1l x e Itk i4il. ,-
, 2 , j it ✓ k� �N, .T It l,ti 4. L ✓e li4 } l 1 .X211 rt�t .+' t 1 `
1 c
ti jl, if i�l:O 11 t, � fi}r• .0 i'rl 4 i J1,,, 1t I r.V �{ �:
r'Z
INT
atc! fl ji �r: 'p tt `=5 . i ,ct•+S1rr,4 dri q2 }'t 4. '` "a I\ .iiT rr'r..
•✓Y.•+ 1
Ct� 11`,f x! t��,"r 111r+ 1Y1, 1 .. i� L �•Q�
IY `tiC � 1' J�%��IJ� ". �7 .: ,. qJ .t� d �} j1t} •[n 111;3 r ti xZ.+-. nits •���y^
rs�{�.h+rr�� �rf. ^rr ``t{i 1 y''•: 1"'� ': t �' d'-r l,�' 1L �'1. jt1 r i c. 5 � t I :ia 7 r ji}f �w
N�I.t•�•c Fy'�l v �..' :. i�h r r•,s, [ ,t t. 1 \ �Vr:i !!r• ♦ y•} a.
H ltd lj ��{, rrr� � t ! �</ 1 1 1 !1 5, i:%: 3'� t:• -d: .p' I'�t fl. � .
rt �� ��]f�Li :/: .��{• ^ 1'14. c�.CNrTt di !'l i:rr.',1 l I :k'`1r if p� is aril , % 3 r 1 L
±1(� j�• ✓ y,l / (•' aL r ~ • • 1 1 �e t'1 1 I 1•.J 4� R, r . {f �L I`11
�4+�� �•t4��y �•`f It t, l L �:• �J � r; -`•,4 c a lx t 1 i•, z z a ✓ "rr /
r,(, %i' Rc � y S.Y+� ..4 r •7,.F ?i'�r'1, t•�ik4 r- � r 1 I.Njt='';'1^ r' :� jT,:t'r� i rJ.•c,rr
, Z 2.IL. t '1 ;f j �•• 1. al '1' J �: f ti� xtit 3),:
,j tl'1, r'r Y'�L�ML, ,, .y�.'•i,.�t� i S' r�J. t_S+ L"•'i '� of 't t il, �i� I%t;l�ir:, ri:l �<r.
f ��Lk.In t`. f 7,Zrt� �i}�C:'tt} y1ry, .J,•s� 5�i.rc�[tL .L r;(ih:r T 1 ;1,}.!� to "'�'t
rrCr . 1 iLl I .f't� ri' t r1SY� 1•. E iir,, lFt� G ri J`3hJj,{:
l�( t �{n}.:"',t
F u'�i '/�,�c�. ;'•c.;+ . d.�ii `IT:'c "; �Ld �. �? Y'1� •`tC'tr%r• � � '1: f ' ✓.. �Y.r'r.3 �:
ta t�.•�;✓L;�.-1% ' �L�;';tH `n?Fj�C�;,�yiZrF,��: 4 r�' .t.t 4".t'i S.\• 1 F.Hig' �_'a Iii 1 t Ytt.({''v- .�t���,a'( ��;. �.
..�� t1 tii.li11�t� r,3 +,rr1. ,.•'�1:1�.j�i'1rt!z•/ !Nl d '�I�i N,1.� -, 4,f,
Jr,
tz.'tt'. r�:iif
•'�1, :b: ` J �il; �r l,� ,, '!'7`CI:I•r'. . ,?.N �� tJ.lJ�4'J.,�r 1 v?l i.�y_ .��I;' �(
�L 4`�t� r 'A 1.... 1�"iI� IL 1 ♦ �� i, � � . t r rti: . t'1 V• ��� t....lV i�. �a 1t',. %��','
�� .� st ,1.,yQ c'-, y r, .`?tp • � _ � .a.�1 t .}:�' t f t yl'S��•,la.. ./3n 2 t
"—^r. if z r1, -4+ r; r > l t•11 , 1 � �-t`
4 ,'•1►:;':r "�-:1 � f 1 t t �, t- ,�.i• ��'}; t a1h�� � �f 1 S• L�
- •r'.'�,,, !. ,[{. i'�'i �'�L�•.�L1H �t,1•'J; •ti! w•- =1S J'•�'f} ����I. 'z r''�t rY�rwlr ti�Y�j tt r� •ice. tt�'
+.aa, ~ 1)!, !jz}t lali�1 i• 1 _ ` %"rff .�� [ � i �, h tr`J )`}. �.. � r
.,` t r -r� IT +�11 iL~�A�:�,t 3t r2 5 trr ��, f rl 'r. t• YS:t�: }Ci �v;} tir^ 1{:
. , , .. , 1,, ,t, • , Yr Q'd - ,� •!T/' 1
vj Jicdt : l'(. 1.•
4� �'tt"t`� ''S i>,4 a• 7fdt%4�i �) � \tir,. S 'titr;;�t f 1•:rplJr �� �tl�l LK13h' �h?��`��iS
Ai
t. �, �.• '' .1 ' a t Er 4• n � r ,7 t .r. 3
�7't jq:�,�,l�t• �'��ir�'ti rc S� :, rC { tt !,�` �� r • It, r•i<o- �t:��'�fi• riiLc �:,'t:.
-+`.,,�„�` � .ij• t ,. �7"{���j/{'•j�tifl r� rc ` �' x� l.;J I s ' • t �sl;,, ij C,�.i u I.f,' \ �.
.. `.Ii'.., r �d z 1.[ T'zT a:'�. tf lI `• ' %!�''�,�7' : 'v li` �i!
� _. - .: a awe nJ '• N C ti L M t � j h •"1,�y1Jrj� ,ll,
�. , r .4• r�1�+ «e� 1 ` • t its 1`I , 4r L G`^��� iii�:L• f7h
k. r• t ,; h,, �. � �r X414+ '.r t
KEY _.
*010W EXISTING GREENLLNE
AREA OF 04P.A, x BOUNDARIES OF REVISED"
GitE1;NLxN1; .:
i..� ALTEZ2NATIVE AREA
lum111M GREEN] jN w-tTti Al TERNATIVE AREA
FIGURE L4GA tON o TZAR CZaICO Ait? A GREENLINE
SCALE
o3rth n'oe� ricil3 +i 2000
1
T-ne amendment .of the Chico Array Greenline could be considered growth inducing
by'directly fostering popula,.tion growth and, by removing the Greenline as a
C=straint to growth (See Section 6, Growth Inducing impacts). Review of the
Cai.co Area,Greenline Policy is still expected to occur in 1987.
Lpsi A, The proposed 0ene"ral Pian Amendment
would increase the supply of
,auilable residentiall land in the Chico Urban Area. The future residential
Iuri is would not be expected to serve students or low to moderate .income
persons, but would increase the Supply of and competition P n among higher priced
Ui.ts. This impact would be beneficial.. At this time, the conversion of this
pr6,Perty from agricultural uses to residential uses may not be consistent with
tity or county ng housi ,
pollci�s which indicate the need to balance
preservation of agricultural, land and/or the environment with increasing the
,-'8UPPly ;of housing. The previous disetissi.ons pertaining to Urban Development
Trends and Patterns and the Chico Area Greenline indicate that the loss of the
Iiub%Jcet agricultural, laid .is a signi''3cant .impact -and that, the- availability of
boraing in other areas of eastern and northern Chico may not justify the
Proposed General Plat. Amendment at this time.
1ip"CG Sphere of Influenee Boundary, The proposed ,project would amend the
Greenline and woul;3 alter the limit of the Chice'-Urban Area. The changes may
req�rire an amendment to the City of Chicots sphere of Influence boundary
;Seders, 1987?.
141TIGAT-ION MEASURnj. The following mitigation measures are recommended to
reduce, the land usi� and planning impacts identified .in this section.
.and 'Use Compatib#'`lity
The City of Chico and Butte County should support the Chica_Area
i Greenline policy by regUiri►g that: 1)an Agricultural Use lJotice be
applied to parcels wittlih 200 feet of the Greenline (refer to Butte
County Code Sections 264, 34-1, 34-20 34-.3 and 34-12 and Butte County
Agricultural Nuisance Ordinaruce) 2) new 'urban development within 200
feet of the Greebline be set back to the maximum feasible distance
consinstent with theapplicable zoning district requirements (cluster
designs should be encouraged to achieve this objective); and 3)
specific performance criteria be tet by agricultural operations,
(Notes': the use of these three mitigation measures could only apply, if
the new Greenlilio"was drawn 'to form a logical urban limit rather than'" --
following the perimeters 4 of the parcels subject to the priaposed General;
Plan Amendment; the 'use of performance criteria which limits
agricultural actitities may not be feasible to Butte County.) gxamples
of performance criteria include the followinj: noise generated by farts
equipment should not emceed the limits Set by applicable city And
county noise sta;udards; noise generation exceeding 70 LMax dBA at the
Greenline should riot be conducted 'between this hours of 10 r do ' P. M. 'and
7:30 A.N.; and physical barriers should be ehcourageri in all eases and
should he required where conditions would be eXpeOted to dkeeed
toleeable,liimits+
'.e.2 TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
,FISTING SETTING
IU.4 SsY tem. The roadway system within the project area is presented in
,Figure, 1.1-2. Roadways serving the project area include- Muir Avenue, Bell
;Road,, Alamo Avenue: Guynn A,wenue, Nord Avenue. The primary access roadways
4 serving the project area are East Avenue, State. Route 32 and The. Esplanade.
i Muir Avenue, Bell Road, Alamo Avenue, Guynn Avenue and Nord Avenue are two
lane _local roadways. 'East Avenue is a two lane arterial south of the project
Hite, but widens to four lanes just to the west of The Esplanade inte^secton
` ast Avenue is 'Vierima
p ry east/vast arterial in northern. Chico, State Route
; 2 is a two .lane highway iroviding access to Hamilton City, Orland, Interstate,
' 5, and southern 'Chico (soF Figures 1.1-1 and 1.1-2). State Route 32 is a four
,lime roadway southeast of 'First Street. The Esplanade or :State 'Business Route
k99 is a primary, north/south arterial leading to State Route 99 which ;provides
torthtsouth access to Red Bluff, Redding (to the north) and to Sacramento and
SoUthern California (to the south). The Esplanade also provides access to
Oommercial areas, including downtown Chico.
Most of the intersections ;in th.e project vicinity are the conventional, 90
4egxlee angle type, but some of the ;intersections have an angle of incidence
:which is significantly less than 90Iegrees. These intersections and the
:substandard construction of the associated roadways are typically able to
accommodate fewer vehicles than coventional intersections and standard
badWays4 Project area roadways can also present unsafe maneuvering
conditionsu The following unconventional intersections are located in and
,near the ro ect area:
p j Bell/Muir, Bell/Nord, Bell/Guynn, Bell/Alamo,
;Bell/Jones;, Boll/Elkwood, Bell/Butterfly, Be11/Cussick, East/Kermiedy,
,xennedy/State Route 32, ah'd Rodeo%Nord. The following roadways do not mbi2t
county roadway standards. Alamo, Guynn, Nord, Rodeo, Henshaw and Muir.
local Traffic.Conditions and Levels of Service. Table 3:2-1 provides a`
description of :levels of service. for intersections. Existing traffic volumes
Aon roadways within the project vicinity produce acceptable levels of service
(relatively free flow). However, levels of service are being incrementally
State Route 32, East/The Esplanadeetgast/StateoRouteng intersections! Easel
-.educed by increasing traffic Volumes :at the
�' 99, East/Cahasset and The
Esplanade/Cohasset (see Figure 1.1-2)► Table 3.2-2 provides the existing F;M,,
peak hour levels' of service at these intersections, At some locations, they
.
M
bevel:. of service is estimated eased on observations rather than calculations
A.re"ideTraffic Conditions,. in 1962, the City of Chico prepared an areawide
transpartation study For purposes of documenting the traffic setting, the
Chico Urban Area firansit Study (CATS),, prepared for the city by Jhr: and
Assooiates, is :hereby incorporated by reference. The CATS has not teen
Adopted by the county: Some of the assumptions/findings presented in ,CATS
bAy not be current, prudent, or accurate. This EIR recognizes and aocouhts
for these inadequacies to the extent feasible. The county. 'Will cooperate with,
the city and encourages the city in its effort to refine the CATS.
The objective of the Chico :Urban Area Transportation Study was to prediot
future traffic levels in the Chico area and identify transportation
i:?provementb that Will be necessary to'accommodate this future travel.`demand4
t
OJ
'The CATS information ;is to be updated 'and revised based Upon ,
data available.and represents a basis from Which:cumnlntipo traffic t
P the most current
can be the
ur o;� lyses
g ' �� P. P es of euntulative traffic impact analysis in the project
> T., a[ssumptj°o;ps represent all reasonably foresee• ' p j
the area of potentially environmental impact {Palmer able projects in
tsros�er�t3 exi,sXMizjLr and Fire jetted traffic volumes on major8str�etsbin the.
3.2=3
project area. Figure 3.2�-1 shows the imajor es on majo st ti
Ep00
according to •the GAT;. required h
rcc,.�ired by buildout of tete General Pla-2c,hows the major im ,r Y the year
ovements
1"oi .owing are the rima; parity accords to the CATS. The,
Primary improvements Identified in the CATS for the 'project
area,. These iaaprovemen s are expeoted by the � ear 2
Y 00.0..,
Widetring of East Avenue to four lanes 6 etween State Route
The Esp fen: ade. 32 and
Widening of East Avenue to six lance; between. The Esplanade and State
Route 99. t Butte Count,
The maximum fiasik,le width Of, Avenueions the ain
to be five lanes. Widebthisyloeation isof this Aeovement.
xpected
Avenu,ni�ig would a,�,im�,tlate ion street
(z in this ].oc ition. } Parking along East:
Intersection imP rdVemenbs at LAssenlrthe� Es la
99v and The EsplanadetCohasset. P nade, Lassen/State Route.
The additionitl
primary .Irprovementa in the ro e^ o
fdr buildout of thr, General Plan capacit}i' 1 ; area identified ill the? CATS
A z ex four laze do.24Vs0tiOn beState Route
Lac�sen lvenua;; incl'ttrJin , - ._ 32 and State Ratite 99 i*ia
g a new change at State Route 99-.. --
e:
A new two line connection betwe�iz Stj,e Route and State Route
Eaton Road. a 99 via
7,he following � ,
M
Improvements 11t the 2 Orth lariPies tz'aff;i.e conditions and Janne d
6 .east from CA',C$ c:
wort Chi Subarea.. Generally,P
the $o1ithwes t Chico
rl.�uhurea involves the:.. area tlortkt�'
Of 11th Aven�,z�e� d Nest of Coha;�set.
'The Major bottleneck in the
�j
li�5rth�te�st Suia�zea will, be East Avenue, Where
haaff io of up to 55,000 vehielits
tr
have to carry bJ,l east" ' - pez dad of s `oreoast. East Avenue will
Avenue State Route 2 .st tr°'fie betwee,11 the commercial areas on Nord
East Avenue; para 3 )and col�asset Read:
Ave �C`o avoid „massive xaitlening ot`
..ar arterial
to roli'ld t extenched west, to Nord Avenue find be
made a four 161ne arterial thratl6;;hoot. The e�x�st� hg sections of, Las
Avenue he bridge
be widened -frbm .4 t1 to 4@ feet, except, fo;r Under the freew
aY :
s �' It , y
which would alae be 13n�;ecl to ttie RautN a
w erE: the brill a abu•tment�s are Only 52; :poet �a art
S �iy psi allel road
as 34 of the East: Avenue tra •`f� d 99 f,i Qewey, Would attVact As much
Further :rel,tortcolild be ,provided by* extend]
Avei7ue. Phis y+ou�.d divRrt abet' `Eaton Roa�d`'west, to Nord
2 and not th tad,. Chico as `stall ag: twotothI be 11t hrzusa a day between Route
o E
a abd the Routea,99 fre nd trips 1�etl�te
en )tolat;e
at otzt 'i 006 tri 1 e,+a� htis,, with the iassen and
Eaton aatteils3ous,
be diverted to Losseh; d�leavno 01hd iag�only around 2 �pb0 trips e`on. SPast tel
ps Would
AV,'MUe
3,2w4
�11���1► i�►�IYt��i..—. w.`�lk _. ?4 =, .. .l . .h J., _ � c il:li '. ''it � ;� .
'
2V3LE 3-2--m2. EXISTING LEVELS OF" SE' PVICB
CHICO DURING THE
AT QpPLICABI E IZtTERSEC�'IONS IN 'NORTH
T�. M.. :PEAS,
HOUR
i
INTERSECTION.
P.M PEAK HOUR
i
4
t
- —
r ,
-LEiEL OF SERVICE (a)
;—_,_
East/SR 32
--
A. (b)
Sast/Kennedy.
�
A (b)
!�
SR 32/Kennedy
A (b)
j
East/The Esplanade
NA
East/SR 99
Narth Ramp
South Ramp
-A ( -47)
A (.57)
East/C0hasset
B (.62)
The Esplanade/W bt Shashi
A (b)
The Esplanade/West Lassen
A (b)
The Esplanade/Heirshaw
8 (b),
-The. Esplanade/Cohasset
SR 99/Eaton
B (b);
PA Not Available
(a) See Table 8.2i..1' fpr desariptiohs o:f101:,v6ls of service for intoeseetiobs.
(b) This I'evel or service is assUcned by ttie city ,based on, observations
rather
than terhtng movement volubes,
perft�riged (Her Pieki 1?85)2
becaUse, no recent coiiirts have been �
8bUr0e , bderick 1986
s
k
i
_,. _a4.iva_ .
r., L .
TA8iE 3.2-3• EXISTING AND PROJECTED TRAFFCC VOLUMESON MAJOR STREETS IN THE
PROJECT, AREA
I,
l STREET SEGMENT EXISTING_
FUTURE (20Q0)
DAILY VOLUME DAILY VOLUME
1981 (a) 1986 (b)
.9 AVENUE
5E 32 to Dixon/dussick 8,800 9,716.:_ �-
�!
Diloh/Cussick to The Esplanade 10 4o0 1 r
The, ,�00
!1 „w
Ttte :Esplanade to SR 9
1�1,8Q0' 16►25T �-I,700
SE 99 to Cohasset ,340 5 ,700
.
11,300 12,476, 1&,6U0
THE 'ESPLANADE
E'C:ton to Lassen 7,4o0 8y17p r
Lassen try East 18,500
s
13 3o 14,684
Ea t' to Cohasset26;Sbo(c)
2,600 2,5,056
2!i, 100
-
STATEROU`.FE Igj
llorth of East NA NA
o�t�thof East 12,1700
. 87Qo 9,606
f
11,�4ao
(a) Source Butte County Ciedulatiod Element, 1984.
(b) 1981
volumes increased by two percent ;per year for five years; Derrick,
tci Indicates u.'iderestimated future volume or overestimated 1986 volume.
NA.: Not Available
souse.! Earth :,etri.cs,, 1985; Butte County Cirdol,ation' Element, 1984; and
�orrick 19$6-
Fierce, 1986.
m
�`xest of The Esplanade) The ► East of the
will be further reduced by the
tr6ftid asahioht
pebposed LasseriaAvenuetinterchangehe
Will divert much da; trgf fi e. Thus, f.raffic alonE East Avenue betteen
Nord Cohasset
rand Vould probably mange, 5.-eba 2y;alo to 30,000 vehicles pei5
day, with trs�ftc oti 'Lassen ranging Pram
1i}G00 Cat Mord) to ?5,001) (+t
of the frt;uaR4) vehidjes per day. Thus, East Avenue
may stilt lbe iiblo to
function as a four latae raa:do although it liar been siiouu as a lane
vAdway on Figure 19 be
,to conservative. xh .
any; case, the Lass6h dnd Exton,
extenstdn lira��cts sho ed be done first, and East
Avenue only V.jdeb0d' to
six lanes if con,8estioo on Last still ocaiar;a. n
,F
Othernecessary ary improvementsin the Northwest. Subarea include widening,
Cobasset Road to four lanes between The Esplanade and Mangrove (adeguate
right of way exists along most its length), and making Eaton Road u four
lane road between The Esplanade and Cohasset" (City of Chico;, 1982.)
AnbtFer improvement Which is not mentioned in the CATS, but is anticipated by,
the City of Chico, is identified in a CALTRANS "Route Concept Report" related'
to State Route 32. In the project vicinity, this improvement would, involve
the widening State Route 32 to four lanes and the
lanes and left tarn project construction of bicycle
to ten pockets. This ro ect is at the bottom of the CALTRANS
p priorities for construction between 1990 and 195
.. 9NMPoi°tation Element of the Chico General Plan.. The Transportation Element
of the Ch.ido General Plan is directed towards to itvtng a balanced
tri�psportation system, which ensures canvenient acceso for all Chico
ro6idents, serves the proposed patterns of land use, Arid minimizes disruptiaii
' of the environment. The discussions focus cn: 1) th�� implementation of a
coordinated multi modal transportation system accommodating
rotor vehicles, bw cycles, and private and pub3;ic
pedestrians, 2) the scenic enhancement of the
highway :landscape; 3) the abatement of noise generated by transportation
systems, 4) safety; and 5) separation of modal systems„ Noise was not found
to be a significant environmental issue for the proposed project, according to
the Initial. Study prepared by Butte count
m ('see Appendix 16.1)
policies sunmarixe the Transportation ;Elem. pent. The following
Insure that the ,existing and proposed circulation systems
the multi modal traffic functions they are intendedtoserve withdatodae
minimum axiverse .iii.pact on the environment of the ci
st Coordinate all:
modes jistems to maximiz�Q aaf'ety and efficiency and minimize conflict between
`(see followi�rg discussion on the C111,eo Area Trsportation Study,
Traffic Setting). an
Develop a public tt!absit 'System r I
Chico�ommunity:- A,cti.rely promote the system as an alternative
greater
responsive to the needs of
automobilesi tive to
(The Chico Area. Transit System is an ex ,$ting 'service),:
- Devzlo a
p j e destinau ons and, as ; y poi alle,
p system ,of bicycle facilities
that
separate access to ma o provides where
i a sures the sa."� ty of all (see
discussion on pedestrian and bicycle facill.Lties)
ct, andenhance the scenic qualities of State
other'major, r Routes 32 and 9.9 and
entry gays to the city.
adjacent to State Routes 32 y A11 new commercial development
3L and Ag should be adequately landsca"peri'.
ofrtheaButte County Gene a1 p1ar, waunty GeneraY plan. The Circulation Element
to managing and developing the futuieprepared In 1984, transportat;ionandThe cireuement is a guidti,
the county The intended timeframe of the Element carries circulation sys"tem ate:
Uith analysis, evaluation, and planning focused oh policiestaudhprograt�s e year Gbr
within rive and ten year timeframes. The Element is organized into three
basic components. The first com oven
p t' P Y �
t „ p art Onewilasis for+ Folic is intended
be an analyticalt n Issues anc�@ basis for ;developing A transportation
y Transports
goals, ot1j ctives p ountyrs
countywide and urban area trans
portationies' sets .forth... Butte lici.es> and
programs to the year 20010. The A Circulation Element Element contain
ppendices of the Cir cu
1
f
Additional information and data supplements
6 pP ents referred to by the previous text,
incsluding the Blementfs environmental impact report. The Butte County
Circulation Element Diag
improvemerst shown in.F ram is presented in Figure 3.2_3. The primary
-'
g 3.2-g that relates to the.: project area is 'the
Eaton, Road extension which would be constructed. after the
1 additional east/west capacity .in North Chico. Year 2000 to Provide
The following Policies, programs and "requirements of the
i Circulation Element spetifioally relate to the Butte County
P
f� Cdneral Plan Amendment project; Project area and proposed
rf
2.1.2 Butte County will encourage and support sincere efforts by county
drainage. ainags to fora assessment districts for road maintenance and road
dr
2.2.4 The county will pursue the development of a comprehensive fiscal
impact model or ,program, including for traffic or road ,impacts, to;
assist in the analysis of Cost and revenue balances from proposed
development projects. Pro.
posed
Program: The county Will study, develop and implement, as feasible,
the following road related fiscal programs, over time:
1 Road assessment districts for maintenance of new development,
2 Development fees for off site traffic impacts :caused by new
development. This program should first. develo
r
schedules for specific developments thatp Plans and
will contribute to the
impact of cirCW atian in surrounding locations. A long te,rz
goal of a countywide developer fee program for tea
should beffic impacts
road development pmehed and implemented at a later date. Com rehe nsive
fee programs should be jointly developed
between the count
county,and the ci es of Butte County.
Drainage assessment districts in problem..areas:
4) Enforceable road development agreements.
5:1 • Right of way needed for new roads or expansion of existing
roads
development of such right of way shall
P
y all he y
shall be
Planned tori Land uses that would Preclude the timely
Prohibited-,
�•1+G
Usable road easemen.tsofadequate ate width shall be located As to most:
beneficially sery
e the heads of all parcels:
4.'1.8 Private subdiVision roads Will. be built to z'ull county standards and
they Will be privately maintained as such thiori;
cycle. i their mai ntetance
New :land diVisons should bel held responsible r'or their fair share
of the off site road improvements heeded to handle the traffio
i:lcreases that 'they icause.
If
41.1.11 The county ^,Should encourage the utilization of development
agreements as one ;way of ensuring that road developmeait standards
and plans acre met.
14.'i.1 The county will maintain the ;integrity of the Chico Area Greenline:
adopted in 1982.
,e�stran and Bicycle: Facilities. Pedestrian and tricycle activities
paerated from. wVfain the project, area are relatively low due to the low
oetlis"ity of development in the area. No sidewalks or formal bicycle lanes exist
a'1 .ng roadways in the are4i but the low traffic ViDlumes and low residential
density ,make walking and bicycling relatively safe. „tact:ivities. Some
Otfloulties are encountered by pedestrians and bicyclists at the intersection
et )3alftt Avenue and Esplanade and near Jay Partridge. School. Henshaw Avenue,,
�■► 40en Avenue{ abd Cussick "Avenue,- south of ,BGll Road, -are ,designated as
g long
range Class I'II bikeways. Class III is equivalent to a'bike route with no, on
street right of ways or improvements.
Pishlte Transit. The Chico Urban Area,. is seared by the Chico Area Transit
Systeme Regular scheduled bus service is provided near the project area by
mute 'I, whish serves East Avenue and T12o Esplanade, east and south of the
project area. The route serves North Valley Plaza Mall, both Chico hospitals,
and the Social SecUrity office. The caps,city of this route is equaled during
pep..k hour periods: NO mute changes are ,anticipated in the near future.
lnt ttnsificatio,n of development along East Avenue, and the increasing iclporatan%:e
cat' 'Edst Avenue ase .1.ey arterial, hewever, may result in a modification of
.Rotate 1 or the addition of a new rotate serving: properties along East Avenue,
between The Esplanade and State J,3oUte 32„ No schedule for this impi,ovement
has been adopted (Dt�rrick, 1986).
The clobest bus stopto the
Pe.-
of 'vl�e project area is located at the
project pro between 6-80
eAmile east of,
intersection of Fara , Approximately,
the ro eet ai ea Bus service weekda'v� is provided betwe '- .tK. and. 7:30.
East Avenue with The h,� �;3nade
P.M,,, Saturday sealvide is available between 8:30 A.M. and 6:30 P:M. Most
trahsfer points are, located in the doWntoWn area. :gegioral transit service is
,prdVidedby Butte County Transit, which operates routes from the City of Chico
tO,PUtte' College and the community centers of Orovilto and Paradise.
Zzerggg6v. Access. Access routes to and thebUghout the project area are
prk.sented iii Figure 5.9i-o. No emergency 'vehicle access restrictions currently
ekitt within ttr around the project area. However, the unconventional
intersections identified previously in this ,section present minor obstacles to
large vehicles, such as fire 'trucks.
TMPACTS
;' dV,,, e eration. The proposed General Plah Amendment wouldallow rip to 270
neer residential units to be approved in this project areal These residences
wiould generate approximately, 2,700 trip ends Unbound or outbound) per day,,
based upon a trip generation rate of tex! trip ends per, pesidenee per day
(,Institute of 'Tpansportation l ngi.neers, 1982). Peale hour trip generation :febti
the 270 residential units would be approximately 270 trip ends during eachof
the A.M. and P. M. peak hour periods, the A.M. :and PA .peak hour periods are
the one.hour periods with the highest traffic volumes between 6.30 and 8:30
3tit-11
e L}
tj/:el>I01ar01w/ Irthrkp.iimarlonlJitw,fant
-
♦ 1
♦', 4 • 6r 0
(Ikr 1 t
y ! :�++ «««t«I« +t, tii««�? ra / i am
1 Ir r r4 1
' •F- 1 It iyN+fit+i+,itll'/11t11111111ilille/llrf'
r
"r '- •r�'r .,.1 n\ ., 1.*. y � � - it
''� ♦ .«�t +' y s ,:+r Y �' yr "r I�r is r 7'nr•C � � � ,. � w � n.,l'«'il•1►•j r.
• is vs, s• .!y� a r. ., i 111'�i tl:i/.. �► 1%/
r`�1 h « i ',, `f 1, _ ■ 1:r It C 1 p� ` •. 4dtl•1. • ,:
«
tsiri ll
2,..•rC� Inl*i {' Ir{nr 11.' dt 1 ~ A� ��`�a/� ,«,«« y ,'.� 1 _
1 «
_•,.. � 's1•�. � ` , . .y�. ".r Id`ll�/'if. IiriYl. r l({ .s..6ttSf►1/1y' f1. + Ila,, ��a \�it �}� yl�''1'�� ' ,,�,
r `a� ♦`. ! .+ N �' ��' �1 ,. d=+• t.+..:.; �•ii�lli/�=d� 5. 1+�" �.li r, ♦. ��, , ds ��lr�• a,.
ger.. � - t�,. •,t '�� n�y+t ((l,'� � � � wr � :+., i, � � .xn-•.. r • �}>t �'� +�a �t at' a � >l lr i 1'` 'ir +," � '
i•, • h.. +,.:T+'„ "+ Y '..P��/L r - °ri ��� .t ''s tt�F �''}}rN t� s _ �
/�tlNiii{ I r � �t�, `ti .,� !\a rr`�.',t r;�� r. t •� `�+' " �,,R >Z ..
.,ti. •,air... .{� i,4.r , s . 4♦" " l`'�fxf" [A�� - •�` +� s»i a „ � ^a+1 WI•te }�llil *�`�` "�� � '`i`;e+,�` ' R�� !, a r ..� . • +* •
�•1, ,� �" r - frr. �►� 1 �1� rf a ,L�'h 1 r+:� "♦ d , rs '
t.r.?*i,. \r't.. fl` d��r r' « \r 1 1' d•. "�
,.+' .� `�r� r,�+'L%,� y\:• � �in'11i�'i'' ��; :Tp •t - ' y :1'_ `y 4 1 t..+„i(y+' i� I�r ° ,• .�, s �” �t'.'k
^t+ tz_kl W f y ! ' !'' ♦ i h. J'13' �al+t
'Ut{ NII'7� k1 '. ' ii •' 11 x,f x
,.w, .,fi' •.r. •'i ern:! x, J ., . �,.Mrl: .. �tf>1F -� _�.:j' • i�j .l�Eq«' � O
.r14.> k .VAl '++fir �,F' „••,ra' ��� ,��{r�..w '' �4`:/J r• �. '�ia+
a� 1' Y d js dt`1r �,"++�t. 1r,��P } to { wr 1}• yy y3. !�1.r, �+'
�
I, ±F - +,� dr'i �, �h ,�!� � "!'�i Yi a��4t /4`'I'r� t.'x1*•« ,1aNiy}�'Jr �4�'l'�'� '1"'yr. d r.�r� 'q.' i, �.
„lur '" s +� c� °'\ 'G. Y, r_ �`,.•'r TTII fl �A w w a' '��j' . T�.
, i1 •y t
j\/ .e -y r, w� M�S�N'•i♦13 ��{rst �.:. + ~+�cI`r 'Y�� � �+: y �y,\ .• r.� �'� „�W+ �M�.
It
"+ , �i¢t!•. , .. ,'+f '. « � ''.Hn. . .�:y4; t. ,•., 6n,.r ..e. ,rf;,.- I. �r±++ trvr" .aka J �i.-
}.,+ •* J, f �+, A S� ids �� r � ��1 i ,� t � niatrni
"' l.7 . ,�ws+ r �- a�� . �t',� � �.nsf•�yy� :'r' ` , ' r,�y_' �ty'�'�'� ��� -ai�i ^i�` -`�� �.• �`�._
""�-; I' �j�s_, ,.• °�; 111 �,.['�. >r.. ��s.',�.r�� ^�^.ao� %t:�k, � �. �dV's,l`� ���I/ ifil aF. "��•�,�,. {. �, � ./"
�' • it tr � �����������y t, S+" i.� ,�/ `^��. M".. .� r, a, ���
F d
7r r �\ "yfor r ♦{ � : �iy�.l►� 1�i� ( i�( t i� 5 z SE'4t" "w '� .+ �'J
�,>;%
-- i,a• .di'"� L"y, f7 y t �G`�t ,r,"14i+i •11i•1rl . c �•
Po r d t .� a �,, �� y 5i; u`rr fi�ti�`Ya'!'•.� y �*` �, �3 ��µ,,IA�s' P , �+�"eat "'��e�, -
A ►� r 'r tt
,•rie=•rd irs�imit+' -'h* 'r Yr ' ♦
e•ii �j/ ti, \ 4� •R !, ', yt
V41 �3 ♦ 1 j � >r ..
Irja r`r ., � � � '�t�/ ��fG^ ° '1�+, �l'k .. * �i•n � z'�i� 4 r / ` r. 1•� r.•... I' ..:+ g,_ ~e
1 ti
-IAx � 1?r � �) c 1 4�'y,�l 1� !! i � 1 �` ...� .,sy.�••s� �>,A� "r"� 'ra i �� � �:. ( 1 ' �t
..��•..r .I VI.Ic�N .. .yil �,u9�'`;dn'`r , ...,3.1> ti+�. J' 's•i f+.{,: ,{i/A�:�.. .:c�'�i a, 11�)r DY
l `
--:, — --tea: Y. ,�L• P^ '
1 (Pr 1y`,i" �. r•�f'�`' 'r'p1�' +��IR_• aauM �i11�1isknrra�li1
r� r Y r tt�y i �f>/ kit,
;tlt
r/�•Ittwir:ri�Qi�a'1Ntl.1�M■4� ti �.;.. },� ►'i+ia�''r�tl'�°�lt., .:�'•�l'tli+�'+I / •1 i♦,•
k 1, ♦ dzi i
i )/•ir/•II 1i/1 . tLMC �i1 tRUli1 i tai• r 1 ky " 1kal►io
' �F
j .,IK `r V >A r L ♦ '' W�'i ' V 7.' 1 Ir d •i+ i.. y'^``•rx
s+JL
A �� �i L 1 0 9 ' `s `i•9s • ." i • -,
. # . 1 ►� "�#�.,' �.y ♦.it'•h .,� i eM'�
1 1P SA
�® . �� LI�� , �ffiT}fiR i ik' . y �. «I p w ��irt i0•b sr r4�a�,�lj tr"} ir�t., q. r , � •��,� � � r !�, I w, .4 ��«• xx%�. it�5 .1 1
ihf 111tlU5ANOS 'JE ;ti.Ei { / "° 1i ,� .. al' • +�11 r �3i e, i1+4 , t 1 i. at i««. t
- i
r�rr�rr�•rwurrwlo4rswr•swy+nr�r is.�.,o r rtrrwr - a+r�•,i ,..- . _. nor _.� 4�r t+r1
� 'IC1�lfit 3l 2-4 i3UN&S PIAN OF 'Tett ClItC 1 l� .tV�P t ftM
+
IT1QIbr'{Cft!
' '�w""�'rt'�_ mel .._,. _... __... .. _.. ::, ,:.w.art,t.,G;;;.w„�„•4r„*
r 1�
ttq 1
t
4,14. an and X2:5;10 and 6:00 P.M. Trip generation frau reasonably foreseeable
propjests in the area bounded by Lindo Channel, State Route 32, the proposed
j�gtoz1 Avenue extension and Esplanade, (see Appendix 16.9), is expected to be
*pplooximately 17,500 trips. The trips generated by the project represent
;*pproaimately 15 percent of these reasonably foreseeable trips.
rip 'Distr bu'ti.on. The total number of trips geberated by the proposed
roject ,
(2,700 `trips)' 'Here distributed within the existing roadway system 'by.
A;,!ki,ng general.assumotions about where new vehicle trips would be destined.
%kIe primary a;ssumpt, jns were as follows:
Five percent of all trips would use State Route 32 north of Muir Avenue.
p p _e.,
20 ercE rrt of all trips Mould use State Route 32 south of East Avenue,
70, percifnt of all trips- would use debt Shasta ('10%) , West Lassen (10%)",
Henshaw (15%) and mast Avenue (35%) for travel east of Cussiek, _
Five percent of all; trips would use Cuynn Avenge (2.%) and Cussick
Avenue (2.5%) soutli of East Avenue.
Table-3.2-4 presents the expected incremental increase in vehac ¢ +��^'s mr.�,
projected to occur frob 270 additional residential units 14 r o r
Tab" a 3.2--?5 presents the relative impact expected. w,,.th and without the
proposed project on the circulation system.
raf€,;r^ C not Eons. The addition of up to 270 r6sidential, units to the
projei�t e,rag Mould incrementally increase tho traffic. volumes on area
z° �^ roadwa.�ts. This additional traffic would add to pi %IJected vclultes in the
project vicinity and would decrease levels. of service a` "affected
�r inter.60-0t•,ions. The following discussions clarify where impacts could occur, as
a rfsult of the additional tris enerated b the ro eot in one future year
' ., trips g Y p le cinder
S��ATE R0'UTE 32. The:. additional tris enerated b development allowable
the proposed General Plan Amendment would increase the ,number of left turns
from East. Avenue to State Route 32, would increase traffic on the eAbb/v6st
portion of Kennedy Avenue, and Vould increase traffic at the State Route 3,V
Muir Avenue 1hterseetion-. Although these 'impacts woad reduce travel caparit '
somewhat'alobil State Route 32 tk,ey would not be considered significant and
would not i eclUie6 mitig,mAlon, ,such as signals or turn lanes, elite to the
relatively low traffic volumes involved and tho fiemaining capacity of thestl
inttrsectiofts.i Planned, long term traffic improvements, a�'[ong State Route Ij2j,
such as those 4bprovements included in the CALTRAM "Route'Concept RePa"rt";
shall be cohstVV6ted to maintain a.coeptable levels of servido in the futurl3
(soe Mitigation Mtrab%ires)
y .g pa trip g
LAST AVENUE. fast Avenue "ttould carr.: a lar a rtibn of the tris enerated
by the turban growth anticipated by the year, 2000 abd'the residential growth
allowable under the proposed project: The additional traytic at the west end
of East Avenue generated by tbeproposer pl'bject would not be s"i¢"nifioant.
(See the previolts "dibdussiorj pertaining"to State Route 32.) Howevery thEi
additional trafirid ormited apt the ;intersdLa tions of Last Avenue with Nord, }
Guyhho Alamo, acrd Cussi ki 10he Esplanade abd State Route 99 would red;uob
r