Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout84-45B MOOSEBERRY/BURREU GPA/REZ (2)�3. RESPOtiSES 7`O COMMENT`S ON THE DRAFT EIP. Th e follow i ;:g responses address the comments presented u Section 12 of this j report T.e responses -which required, revisions to the Next of the Draft EIR. refer to tho appropriate portions of the text where the' r evision(s) have occurred. flHANIAti, JOHN E.. CHIEF -DEPUTY DIRECTOR', STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING _AND RESEARCH:. MAY':3, q,al Standard Final EIRProcedures. The comments are noted. D{ B11YA1iTDENNIS J. ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM COORDSN98ATTORi5TATE DEPARTMENT' OF CONSERVATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR, MAY 19 ._ _ onver Section 3.11 Land Use, D ingi ApplicableuPlanslandnPolieies,iLand Use Compatibility lmI?acts. n. Pla�,r,ing, APP �. 5, uantitatiVe and Qualitative Dtta on Agricultural Economies. The qualitative state cents on page 3.1-1 of the Draft EIR identify positive anii caegative conditions which affect the economics of agricultur"al uses in the project area. The negative conditions are not emphasized; but are identified td illustrate the ap plicantlz perspertire. Qualtt tative data, including acres in production and yields, have been added to the discussion of Agricultural iCharacter of the Project Area and vicinity in Sertion 3.1 of the EIR. (See also the Response to Comment b.4. 8..3 iiuisan�^es and Ad.arent..Agricultural Lands. The concurrence is not ed: 1.4 --Into Describe- Long 'ferm,Faximlarid Convers;I�on. Impact:.. Each or the points raised` by this oomment have been discussed in Section 3.1 of the EIP,. Refer the following parte of Section 3•y`s Agricultural Character of the Projo0f�,` 'krea and Vicinity, Loss of r43ricultural Land, and Land Use Compatibility. B.5 N.taRaw for nversion. The comment re- quests that�Mthr eeenetirrmitigatian ,measures beaddedto the EIR. ane measut�es are a8 fo11t *s r Conversion of nonfarmland .to gov, farmland of equivalent quality and 1. quantity elsewhzre in the arca: 2: Protection of other, existing farmland through the use of Williams on Act ® con-ts. ■' 3, Use of rSetbacksp buffers; and riot -to -farm ordinances to offset ' n;zisance impacts of urban u:�es on neigh -boring agricultural o p enation s and 'vice versa. Vie first and second measures are the coordinated .responsibility of the City of Chico'# Butte Countyt and private landowners, but cannot be implemented by the developer as conditions, of approval for the protea"sed project. The third measure has, been added tr, Seatian 3.1 of the ETR. C. CUSSICK AREA NgICNHL''`-COb COUNCIL Y.- t �IAY S6 A 86 C.1 M3 ti atiozi fa NarELW Substandard Roads. The concurrence is noted. C.2 Mini anion for Thq concurrence is notted: ed. Road Extension and Access from the Pro ect Area. The engineers of gxtencion are functions o,r, the City of Chiconand ButtegCountyePublie Wooad rks Departments. The recommendation for .Me access pointto the south for local service is noted. i s Mini at Thnefconcurrencee sRnoted Se tic Tank Use and for a Planned es SvtaAe Lin. Miti anon for Fire Protpctior,. The concurrence 3s noted. C. Ade"r,uaej of School Facility �s Exvansion Diseu_ ssrn, School District has reviewed the Draft EIR. Their eommentsThe Chico presennifie Section 12., Comment E. in C.6 ProPnsed Roads Polcv. The concurrence is noted: Mite atian for Libraries. 71e concurrence is noted. C.8 Recreation Facilities in_Laraer Area West o_ f the Esplanade and Nort�1" Linda Ehannel. The lack, of recreation facilities in this area is noted. - Eutte County is; working on a means to collect fees for ,s;ite acquisition and facility development. Acquisition and development of not. likely without a source of funding. Refer toComment G fromthe isharea is Area Parra.; and Recreation Department. C•'9 I.asseti Avenue Extension:, The Lassen Avenue Extension is proposed in tha .Chico Urban Area Tralsportation Stud measure far the proposed y (CATS) and is not arequired mitigation. PPoject- The proposed density of the development contemplated along 1,a8sen Avenue would not-neces.saril struction of the Lassen Ave Y prevent the con-• nue Extension, bust the limited funding available from such development could make the public costs for the extension prohi. bitive without density iacreastys; Future improvements to the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions, and land use density changes') shoUld rehire :the feasibilityand need for the Lassen Avenue Extension (refer to Response to P en Avenue Extension), Comment I.�12 for additiox!al res' oases related to the Lars C.10 .Level of cervi ae a1',Aast,�Esnlaaade Intersection. Of Esplanade and East. has ,aot bode, ealcula ed by the C3tyiTaf Chico or Buttehe level of �� +county. �O.3ed on observatjons the level of service at thislocation is L08 ,C or LOS; D (see Table 3.2-1). C.11 Traffic Studies for East Avenue/Es lanade Intersection and Growth Constraints in Northwest Chico. The purpose of the Chico Urban Area Traffic Study and future amend.a�ents 1s to identify the required i4rovements necessary -s o Urban Area. The impact of the to aocommodate projected growth in the Chic project on this intoY�ection would not significantly ng. of aerviee after recommended mitigation, alter the exists 1eve1 15-•2 i C.12 Right of Way Constraints Along East Avenue. East of Esplanade. The comment is noted. This improvement is not required direotly as a result of the proposed projeot, but is proposed as part of the CATS. suture improve PIP monts to the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions, land use density changes) Will refine the feasibility and need for.this improvement. D. LOUDON, J8MEY M'., CHIEF, ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, MAY 9 1986 - D.1_Feasibility of State 'Route 99 Interchanges With Lassen Avenue and East 5th Avenue. The comment is noted. Neither of these improvements are required directly as a result of the proposed project, but are Proposed as part of the. CATS.; Future improvements to the CATS analysis (constraints assumptions, land use density changes) will refine thL feasibility and need for these interchange3. D.2 District Route _Concept Report for _State Route 32. The comment is noted. The project, by itself, would not require the improvements identified in the District Route Concept Report for State Route 32 (see Section 3.2). D.3 Financing of Lona Range Measures Recessary to-Mitigate Cumulative �. Impacts. The Draft EIR states that "Measure identified in the Butte County Circ,ilation Element should be implemented, as necessary, to acquire appropriate 'funding from developers, FHWA and from CALTRAMiti. for appropriate traffic mitigation measures .identified in the; CATS and .in the Draft EIR. (See Response to: Comment I.63 which also addresses this issue:) E. THOMPSON,� ROBIN G.. BtiSINESS. l9R!`IAGER/COMPTROI,LER, CHICO_ UMIED SCHOOL �. DISTRICT,�MAY .2,_1986 E.19t0dent do leration and Overerowdi'nR. The coi'nment ;is consistent vith the staLtlements rade in the Draft EIR. The comment is noted. E.2 Capacity Versus 1986-19 . Enrollment at Junior and Senior.ti�h Schools., The comment is noted. Substantiation of Overcrowding. The comment is noted. r9.4 Capacity of Neal Dow ,School: The comment is noted. The Draft EIR states that this impact is signifidaht even after mitigatib i; �ty of Bidwell Junior High School Capaci . The oomment is noted. E.6 .Capacity of Chico Senior High School. The comment is noted. E:7 The District_Position on Pr6Jeot. the, :request is noted ' E8 Butte County Ordinance ,No. 21463 and Rasolution No._ 85-,40. The request is noted. Refer :to Comments 1,33; 1,440 1.450, 1.51, I.54 and 1.66 Which address Lssues, related to schoolb. 13-3 i \I ii DF'PARTt NT OF PUBLIC WORKS, BUTTE COUNTY, APRIL $ 19$6,' r� vexation t 4, �,q � o Chico Urban Area. The recommendation for annexation, of the arch into the. Chino Urban Area is noted. This annexation is not proposed by 1:he applicants andhas not been evaluated in this document in terms of Local Agency Formation Commission concerns or the requirements of the California ;Environmental Quality Act (see Section 1.2, Project Description). Specific 5data regarding the provision of public services and utilities is provided in ,Section 3.4, Public Services.. Road Standards. The comment is noted. See the mitigation measure3 in 'Zection 3.2 of the EIR. ,C, HUGaiES JERRY. GENERAL 14ANAGEPi.CHICO iMEA RECREATION:AND PARK DISTRICT, APRIL 3, 19$6 Got Concurrence: with Mitigation.: The comment is noted, G.2. Significance of Park and Recreation Imbaets. The Draft EIR states the following regarding impacts to parks and recreation; Parks and Recreation. Development under the proposed project would e incrementally increase the demand for part: and recreation services. Although the project related incremental impacts would not be considered: signf'ioant, the cumulative increase in demand for parks and recreation Would': be considered significant .and would add to the need for in lieu fees for neu projects. The EIR also states that the recommended "In Lieu Fee" program and development -, ,of -a, -Natural- Resources and Recreation Element for the County General Plan would mitigate 'the projectis incremental impaet to an insignificant level. ` T paalso be m on parks and ed with Implementation otsthe recommended could itgat .G,� -Natural Resources and Recreation Element. The comment is noted, . 0'.4 CARD Facilities. The comment is noted. E� TUTiLE, LAURA, OCIATE PLA ASt NIIER,_ BUTTE � COUNTYJUNE 27, 1986 H.1 Drainage .Pla'n. Speeif- ore uiremahts for drainage are identified in Section 3.3¢ Geology and Hydrology, in the kR, See also Appendix 16;10. 14.2 Quantitative Data for Sewer Immproyements. Specific requirements for wastewater disposal are diddUssed in Seotioh 3.4, Public Services an. Utilities, in the ETRE See, also Appendix 16.10. H _ bo a Table 2 1-2 and Appendix 16AO. t,i st of Infrastructure Im royements, Se A64 .Cost Estimates. See Table 20-2 and Appendix 16.10i .13=4 Uncertainty and Useof Differing Scenarios and Cost Ranges. Tue coicment is noted. Uncertainties are identified briefly in Section 2.1 'under SummarY of Mitigation Costs. Differing scenarios and cost ranges are utilized Where ,appropriate. The 'report must focus on baseline (1986) conditions to avoid o peoulation. Analyses of the various combinationsof development scenarios ,would not provide readers with enough accuracy to aid in decision Makin,. Fpr eyample, sewer service costs will vary annually as a result of inflation, rogional and areawide development density, and the specific engineering roquirements identified during the design year. H 6 CUst for 5e�ptic Tank Systems. Septic tank systems would be considered parrl of indiVidUal site development costs rather than areawide development cod4s> Septic tank systems are expected to cost approximately $1,000 each. ;B. ReriresentatiMe Costs. See Appendix 16.10i .$ Off Site Improvement Costs Prorata'1 on an Acreage Basis and Based on Henotits. See Appendix 16.10. Off site improvement costs associated with traffic mitigation requirements were prorated based on traffic increments. Fa ss `i le 2.'1-2. it Share Assessments and st of Costs See Tab ms. See Section 2 1 and A 8.10 _ . Typez-. of Fundi. MecSaanis Appendix, H. 11 KKgg ded~Discussion of.Alternative Involving 400'Acres See Section 4..2 Expanded Project Area.Alternative, and :Appendix 16.10, ii.12 .No Pra:jeet,Alternative. The No Project Alternative is discussed in $ection 4.1 H'.13Suecifir.14i.igation. See Sections 3.1* 3.2 3.3: and 3A for revilsed mitigation, pleasures. `8.14 _ Chico ,8bhere of influence a?ad Feasibility of Conneetiin,R to the Coin- munity Sewer System. Connection to the sewer system is not required at this time. The City, of Chico wo►ald not be expected to modify its Sphere of Zhfluen�;e if the ''project area were to develop with rural standards (Road Standard SRS-1, septic tanks and no stcrmwattr infrastructure). Project area development under urban standards would improve thF probability that the city Council:: would, approve of a sphere change, brat would not guarantee such a decision. Howelwer, if the project were to connect to the city 'sewer syntem, the city Mould require 'a sphere change Connection to t;he city seweris not likely because the .capacity, of the Bast Avenue line is dedicated to other development areas and this line may not be able to serve areas to the north as a result of the topography. The engineer- ing feasibility of a lift station in this area has not ;been studied. If such a system were feasible-, an equivalent capacity, improvement *4buld be required, 0ithin anot`ret portion of the system to justify the cohnection The feasibi- ty of such aia improvement :has hot been studied. 'discussion of oemulative impacts. H 1 Cumulatlrye Impacts. See Section 7 fora reviser) p ..mss ,, _ i... .... .... .. , E16 Ifrastructur�a and Cumulative Impacts, The EIR has been revised to address this comment. 1,VL Initiative and Mitigation. The comment is noted. TUTTT.E, LAURA, ASSOCIATE PLANNER, BUTTE 'COUNTYPLANNING DEPARTMENT, SUti''aRy OF -COMMENTS _ MADE ON ENDURING `PuMiC HEARINGS AND OTHER. COMMENTS MADE DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD, DECEMBER 16, 1986 I —.i ApplicabilitY of Greenling Findings. The Gree:nline policies do not apply to the proposed amendment to the Greenline. The Board of Supervisors eg-n approve the amendment with a simple, majority vote. 1 Traffic and Drainage Imrpaets of the Proposed �ProJeet Versus the Arnold Padfi Shopping Genter. The Board of Supervisors decision on the ArOol t paciric project is noted. - Recommendationmethods. for Septic Tanks. The Draft EIR does not recommend t sewage treatment', 1.4 Formation bf a Large District and Use cif Resident Deputies. The project's impact by police protection services may not be mitigated because asse5ment districts may be rejected by the voters and because the recommended rsitigation fee wd,.d not directly mitigate the project impact. Also, the tlounty Sheriffs Department would, still be understaffed to serve the county {'see page .5-1 of the Draft E IR) i Bell Muir as AgricUltural Land, Traffic and Drainage Need to be Steadied. the oomment that the Farm Bureau would 'not defend the Bell Muir property as agricultural --land_is not complete,. The_Fand Btarezu has decided not to take a position on the agricultural character of the, project site ora 'position- on the Project Peace, 1987. The agricultural activities that occur on the site were quantified in the Draft EIR, page 3.1i-2 (refer to the "responses to Comments 1,35 and 1,36). Traffic icpacts are :studied in Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR, `Drainage impacts- are discussed in :lection 33 of the Draft `EIR. L b and I.7 Drainage Problem. The opinion that there is not a drainage problem in the Bell Muir Area is rioted. The bj,4aft EIR ihdicates that minor localized pending may bdeur in the, project area Alid that drainage studies have been completed to address the projecteddrainage inadequacies in the project vicinity that are expected from future urban development. I'8 setback and`..' Buildable Area of the. bots. The comment that the buildable area of lots adjacent to the'nett Greenline would be significantly reduced is noted. The reduction of buildable area was proposled to forma Luffer between agricultural activities and residential uses: The: 200 foot setback could not apply if the Greenline_follows the perimeter:_Pif the parcels involved in, the General Plan Amendment (too Responeje to Commend;. 1412l s I:41 and I.58) . I9 Timing Mechanisms' for 'Mitiatidh Measure,. Refer to Comment I.62 and the related response which identifies various timing mechanisms. The County Board of supervisors should 'make the policy d6oi ri'ohs related to timing of mitigation meas'Uresti i3 6 L .{ -777 I.-To Adequate Drainage System -Versus 'Underarcr�nd Drainage8Ystem. The Opinion that the term "aderjuate drainage systam* should be used rather thanan *Underground drainage system" is noted. however, the term Wadequate" is not 0.10ar. The decision related to storm drainage is dependent upon the selection or urban versus rural standards rather than hydrologic oonditions. fSee Posponse to Comment I.11. ti t t10 10 to 20 ear sto ear Stormwater Drainatte Standards. 0 Versus 1C to The comment a 1e y rm standard is more reasonable is noted. The requirement for infrastructure to acco=odate the 100 year storm is based on uPb4n design standards employed by the county (Edell, 1987). The method by (111,ch the 100 year storm flows are accommodated is not specified, The Draft .81? recommends methods to encourage on. site percolation. On site detention (holding basins) could be used to increase percolation and reduce surface fYoWs. J%12 Re uirement for Seiorer.- The Draft EIR does not recommend a specific sewage treatment method. 1.13 Hydrologic Data to Support the Proposed Density Increase. The Butte County Health Departmeht and the Nitrate Action Plan have indicated that a, temporary standard of three dwelling "-its pet acre is aieptabie to prev�n +, groundwater contamination and hydrolog lcoverload of the soils (Reid, 81 Data to support this finding is available at the county offices. Data related to a permanent density for development on septic tanks may not be available at this time. (,Refer to :Response to Comment 1.20.) L14__ Police Protection 'Mitirzation. The use of an assessment district rather than impact fees for police patrols would be mote effective because the disteidt could be 'designed to mitigate the p'ro,ject, s impact. - TTowev€t*,, the feasibility of assessment districts is questionable. (See Response to Comment I.'U.) The impact 'fee should be considered because .it has been set at a levtl that Would be equivalent to the projects incremental iapact 1.15 DPainaRe Problem. The opinion that there is not a drainage problem in, the Bell Muir area -is noted. (See Response to Comment 1.6 and I.7.) 1.16 Normal.Rpguirements :for Development on. 1.01.acre barcels. The comment, that sewer hook ups, drainage infrastructures and sidewalks are not normally required for developments with parcel sizes greater than or equal to 1.01 p' The a proposed General Plan Amendment Would allow 1.00 acre acres is noted. The pro arcel sizes: y Board of Supervisors has the responsibility of determining the development standards for the proposed project. Factors other than parcel size Will be considered by the Board. Disoriminato rYZoning. Many, factors lead to 'zoning designations for various properties. The existing zoning regulations and designations would 11 �I not be considered discriminatory. More intense designations along Bast Avenue reflect higher develo,pmont potentials along this arterial. 1.18 Siie of 8xpanded Pro jet Area,. The comment is noted. References to the ' size of the e kpanded project area have been modified.. Aizricul tore Setback., Agglies to Proposed_Pro ect or. Alternative Area: ' Th } hot apply if 'the Geeenline follows the perimeter of e 200 :foot ��etbaok Would the parcels involved in the General .Plan Amendment, (See Response to,_j`)mments I,f6 and Z.41}. d Bounds of Nitrate Action Plan Study' Area and Density Requirements. do p.0posed General Plan Amendment would require a revision to the Nitrate Action ,n Study Area Map. The existing study area is bounded by the limits of the ctp Ater Chico Urban Area.. Alamo Avenue is the existing western limit• i jj,gZjshaw Avenue is the existing northern limit. The development strip along !� Skate Route 32 to the north to about Mud Creek is also part of the vtudy, area. Tit northeastern boundary of the development strip portion of the sWdy,area iris the.Southern Pacific Railroad track, which ;is the western boundary of the B#11 Muir property, as defined in this report. Therefore, the required'map g4o.endment :could form a logical limit to the study area boundary. However, the 1s,11 Muir area is not characterized as an area of high nitrate contamination, i " (Reid, 1987)• b�1, is character fzed as an Area of Conoern Sjgnificant policy changes or, program amendments Would not be i-equired as a result of the General Plan Amendment or study area map amendment because ",areas of Concern" are already included within the study area boundaries. gowever,; before a decision can be made on the General Plan Amendment, the sewage treatment method mast be defined. If peftanent septic tanks are s,eltoted, a land use density (dwelling units per acre) requirement will have to be determined. The most frequently discussed density is one dwelling unit per acre. This is the density requested by the project applicants. The Regional, Qual-tty Control Board may not object to this densityi The Butt County liegith.Department could not makea finding that all of the data needed to make the density decision is or is not available at this gime (Reid, 1987). T'he State. Department of Water Resources indicated that new groundwater samples from new wells representative of biose to be tapped by residents in the project area and vicinity would probably be needed to support a specific density standard for the Bell Muir property: In addition, the Water Resource Vepartment stated that the thr.eahold of acceptability would be ratifier subjective because various geologists and engineers may interpret the data differently (Steel, 1987)• In any case, the density decision is ultimately the responsibility of Butte County. However, the decision should be made in concurence with any requirements established by the Regiohal Water ;quality Control Board (Reid, 197). it the Bell Muir property is :conn"ected to the sewer system initially or later after septic tanks have been installed, it appears that the proposed density would changes. However, the Browneand tCaldwell ion Plan Sewer PlicY lannVbUldsprogram Or have to be samended to incorporate the Bell, Muir Property. I.21 Unmitigated.,Land rise COMRgtibilitY Impact. The land use compatibility b tigaticiii measures have been revised. If tht new Greenl"ine follct s the boundaries of the 'paeoels included in the proposed General Plan Amendment, the. land Use compatibility impacts would not be mitigated. (see Responses to Comments 1.8, I:141 and I'. z2 Source and Year for all Costs. All costs represent 1986 costs. Source's iall 6osts anted in Appendic of the Draft L1R.e16.10 134 2.3 �,J a Mitigation four ,A seawide Traffic Im �' ,. Federal Funr3 ;,h M ,,�, pacts is not Adequate• 1;hQ comment is. noti.d. (See Response to Comment L,63 which addresses this Roue. ., �4 Size of Expanded Po.iect Area. have comment is noted. References to the �. nixe of the ex anded modified. p project area havr..been modif ,�: 5 Revisions to Figures -1.2-1, 1 1--3 3.1-2..1- .2_' and��!_,j The `1 M isions required by this comment reflect boinidary=. anges for earpanded project area. The figures have been correc,,41d in this repFrt. l , ,6 Sewerage Study Versus the Nitirate Action Plan. This warding change .has bvon made in this 'report. 1, 27. How were the Figures in Table 1-2-1 Derived? Footnotes_(a) and (b) describe how the figures in this table were deirived. The figures for the alternative area do not reflect the graphic error' presented in Figure 1.1-3. I.28 -,Typos. The typos have been corrected. • Areawid�Rtraff{ccimoactseawide shculdTbe considered Kith and T,'ithout MitfRation. p significant with and without mitigation and with and withoilt the proposed project because funding mechanisms have not been created that will generate the revenue needed for planned improvements. I.30 Clarification of 100 Year Storm Drainage Infrastructure. The commont is noted. The requested clarification has been added to the text of this document., I.31 Determination of Acceptable Dwelling Unit Density Based on Soil.and Groundwater Conditions. The recommended procedure is noted. (See Response to Comment. 1.20 Which;addressea the density issue.) 1. 52 ..Cost for Surer Trunk Extension*- The method for calculating the cost of the sewer extension is identified on page 16.1.0-6 of the Draft EIR. The $3,190400 cost of the. extension was not reduced to an artificially law level. The 15 million dollar sewer extension would provide for a greater amount :of sewage than the system that is discussed in the Draft -ETR: The $15 million system is the system proposed by Brown and Caldwell. This system would not serve the project site. If the $15 million extension was constructed aid was redesigned to serve the project applicants, then the applicants would be required to contribute hinds as defined by the Plan. For purposes of this analysis, a system that has been designed to serve the project site would be more p tatiWe of future se barn designedwer hook alp costs than a system that has not to serve the site and has not been determined to be financially feasible with or without the extensi%jn required to serve the site• ,i, :3,Iticrease i,h 8ehool.Fees. Applieat+an of the new fee square foot) would mitigate project impacts "related to school capacities Elf 1�q generating y (The projectaappl cantschave�hote approximate) $607,500, assumin the aver 1;5D0 � uuare feet of assessable area: submitted estimates of average square footage for :future residenoes:;) a 135 ' s T Dollar per Acre Casts on •Page„2-17 The annual cast for_Scenarios 1 end 2 are equivalent because the annual nage maintenance fee, police ;r drai protection. fee and roar° maintenance fee is not expected to change as a resfalt e option, the selected road standard or sPwage df,the utormwater infrastructur treatment option. , Size of Ex Area Versus Percentages of.Butte County Agricultural Lard. The 430 acre alternative area represents 0.597 percent of the total :rruit and nut acreage in Butte County. • g e ___,�,6 ChanA� Table 3.3-1. The required change is presented on peg .;3.1-2 of thus report y 4inor Amendme:�ts. added. � Add Notation. ThE, notation has been I t$ and 1.0 _Apa1abilitY of Greenline Policies,. The Greenline policies do not apply to the proposed amendment to the Greenline. The Board of Supervisors can approve the amendment with a simple majority vote. 1.39Zoning Sa1) Amendment. The proposed project would not amend the zoning ,map. 1.40 Greenline Findings: Refer to Response to Comment I.38• I.1 Feasibility of the. 200 foot Greenline Setback. The following note has :been added to the land use mitigation measure which addresses the 200 foot s6tback: the use ;of setbacks could only apply if the new Greenline was drawn tol forma logical urban limit rather than following the perimeters of the parcels subjetot to the proposed General Plan Amendment I•42 Lassen Avenue Extension. The inconsistency Iof the Lassen Avenue Extension with the Cocintu Circulation Element is noted. The .extension is ; identified in. the Chico Area Transportation Study As a future (full buildout): limprovement (See pale 3.2-2; of the Draft EIA.) The recommendation made on page 32-�7 was taken from the CATS and 'was indented in the Draft EIR to clarify its source. I":1t3 Exclusion of nest Lassen and T�enshaw Avenue. The comment,requests that the findings .in this paragraph be confirmed,., The paragraph is ec�rrect in the Draft EIR. Ii. A Mitigation for Pedestrian Safety Iinuacts New by NeStudents in the Prosect Vicinity• The comment implies that a costly elevated walkway is the only mitigation option available for pede�triah crossings at Yay Partridge Sc�iiovli in addition; the comment inglies that the cost of such an option, rnted: The Dressings (Esplanade makes it infeasible, These doinments are Conners and Esplanade/East) that serve students who"reside west of the ,Esplanade present potential safety conflicts for students at Jay Partridge School because of high traffic volumes 'arid traffic moVemehts allowed by existing traffic controls (Gamette 1987): The proposed project is not expected to create an impact related to Jay Partridge; School. because project area will not attend Jay g area boundaries elementary, school studehts residing in the roje Partridge School due to the school districts Attendahce (Hensle�� 1987): Elementary school. students kill be bused to Neil bow r _ u — Elementary School, which is located south of Lindo:Channel and east of State Route 99. Some students from;th% project area may choose to walk or ride a bicycle rather than ride the taus. These students ' would not be expected to cross the Esplanade at East Avenue, but would probably cross East Avenue hod. Lindo Channel 'using Guynn or Cussick to reach West, Lindo Avenue, then cross the Esplanade at signaled intersections between 5th Avenue and 11th Avenue. Fifth Avenue would provide these students with a signaled crossing at Mangrove and a crossing under State Route 99. These crossings should be safer than the crossings at;East/Esplanade anti East/Conners due to the lower volume of traffic on the east/west cross streets of the Esplanade south of Lindo Channel. (The crossing at Connors is affected by east/west traffic on East Avenue.,) Tho school district is activelyseeking anew elementary school site west of the new .site State Route 99. The locationy be north or south of East Avenue, but ultimately the school district intends to have a school :site north: ref :East Avenue within or close to the Bell, Muir property to serve students in the northwest portion of. Chico (Hensley, 1987): These new school sites would significantly reduce crossingsby elementary school students. Therefore,, the impact of the project related to elemertary stud, its and crossings is limited and, temporary. Older students would cross the Esplanade at East Avenue near Jay Partridge School. Although these students present a less significant safety impact than younger students, the potential for conflicts is still important. As stated in the comment, the cost of an elevated crossing is prohibitive. However, the use of a paid crossing guard at certain hoursofthe day could mitigate pedestrian crossings near Jay Partridge School,. This common safety measu.iye is currently applied in Chico at 'McManus Elementary School.,. Funds for such a measure 'nea.r Jay Partridge School have not been directed-toward this activity - - because of other budget priorities (Gamette, 1987). I,45 Three wells have been Tested in the. Area. The comment is noted6 Nitrate coneentrati.ons from eight wells in the project vicinity are pi`esented in Table 3,3­1.- 2.46Dolan Position Statement. Relates to Arown and_Caldwell Study. The ;Y comment is noted. The clari-Pication has been made in this report. (See; Response to Comment-1-13). I.47 Temporary Density.Statdard. The comment that the current ibtandard of three dwelling units per acre on 4K,ptic systems in the Chico urban Area is temporary is noted '1.48 Bell. Muir comment is notedPropert�t is Gutside..of the brown and Caldwell Plan Area. The . i.49_ Clarification belated to the Drainage Plan and the Pont, Anderson and Rolls Plan. The comment that ^The drainage plan will be compf.tible with the Rolls} Andersons and Rolls plan; but will not supersede it" is noted. Li 5b L51_ Sehool.brdinanee and 1cee. The comment that a new ordinance and, fee have been adopted is noted. `y 3_1l ��. , .52 Zoning Hap_ Amen&6nt,, The; proposed project would not amend the _ionr; g nap. i Site of Expanded Project Area. The discussion; the Expanded Project Area Alternative has been revised as a response to this comment. mitigatetigation project relatedomp etsts with (Hensleyee19A7�e new school fee would Wording Change Related to_ProJect Area and Expanded Area AlternatI e. The wording change has been made in this report. 1. , Feasibility of Funding Sources for TrAf tic. This comment makes: the f"oll,oWing points; the .feasibil - ity-of state and federal financing is uncertain; - programs such as UDAG and EDA have been but; the others will probably be cut in the future;. - by policy, benefit assessment districts are only used when the issue is one of public health; and - a redevelopment area is not on the negotiation tab:.e with the City of Chico. These comments are reflected in the text of the revised summary presented in this report I.57.. Areas of Controversy/issues to be Resolved. The comment indicated that the following areas of contro"v"ersy should be added to `section 2:3 of the ErR. Adoption oc the project as proposed would require amendment to the following regionU r,i.ans the sewerage plan, the storm'deainage plat, school heeds studiea, Chico Urban Area Transportation Plan, Butte County Circulation Elemeht, LAFCO s Spheres of Influence;; the ,Nitrate Action Plana and the financing' plans for all of'_the above. Approval of the project would, constitute a departure from the adopted land use plan and reverse a policy which took ten years to achieve. The cummeitt ig noted: (Refer to Section 2.3 of this report.) the County Circulation Element avid the Chico Area Transportation study are inconsistent 'with or without the proposed project. The project would change the Greenline and General Zhlan Land Use Ma.p designations in the project area, but it would not "reverse" the Greenline policy because the change was anticipated and bpe%use the Green'line policy would still exist. Clarify Mitigation for Land Use_Comjatibil t-, The subject mitigation measures have been ,bonded in this dooumett• The setback limit could only i apply :Lf the new Greenling Mere drain to form s logical urban limit. A notation that implementation of performance' criteria such as noise dontrol Gray not be feasible has been added to the revised mitigation measures for land use ^ompatibility: Land use compatibility impacts Would be considered potentially ;rj&ni 'icant With, or 'without the recommended mitigation measures. (See ;tespo ane to Comment Z t 1. 9_.Feasibilty of `Buffer Concent.. The comment is noted. The buffer 4an.cept has been modified to apply t,, the ro o�ed Comment Z.8, I.21, 1.41 L.,xd 1.58.) - P p ;project: (See Response to �. U. Com lieations and Le al Procedures ' res .cor Riht of Wa Abandonm nt: v e The. 10i,tnment is noted. The cost analysis is a simplcation of a very complicated .and "development scenario for i�hich, there are nop pro osed details. There are ma proposed realignments. There are only locations where realignments maybe :xeoquired. It would be inappropriate to include the costs Of residential adq�isitions at this Wine. However, a footnote was added to indicate that the projected ,cost estimates are not worst case estimates. (See .Appendix 16.10.) 9 rrs e _ 146i Additional Internal Circulation Details. The comment is noted. twever, the requirement to develop internal circulation recommendations based 00 the future extension of 'Eaton Roadshould be addressed by the project applicants ;pith a more specific plan or the issue should be evaluated, more comprehensively by the city and county as part of land use 'planning policies tor, tha'Vest side of Chico and their effort, to make the County Circulation :1El.ement and the Chico Area`Transportation Study more consistent. A connection, 0f Bell Road and Cussick Avenue 'to the Eaton Avenue Extension may be p g act acid related mitigation measure zuffiu•ient deendin on future density increases contemplated for this area defer to first and third 'imp s listed on :page.. 2--9 of the Draft EIR': ',T,he feasibility and desire 'ability The City of Ctiico and Butte County of the Lassen Avenue Extension should review the Chico Urban Art twYbrough the project site would be Transportation Studylz recommend` eltered by the proposed project, for extending Lassen Avenue west State Route 32 (funding for such -- - - improvement would be difficult wi,ut further density increases or an area- wide funding district). If this propozal is determined to be a long range requirement, Butte County should require property dedications of right Of Nay prior to development in the area. (NS) The proposed land use intensification Access to the future extension .of Eaton "Uld encourage the extension of Road "should be provided via Bell Road. E'a'ton Road,iwhich presents the intersections with Nord; duynn and 06tential to make Nordy Gum., and Alamo should not be encouraged unless Alamo malar uorthlsouth connectors., addi:ti(anal land Use intensification C1S.) and,,,related roadway improvemen'ws occur Priori to extension of these ri)adways,* CNs) 1.6� . carious Timnk Mechanisms for Traffic and Roadwav_ImdrThe cadent is noted., The County BoakJ of Supervisors should make A polioyeineats: cy decision related to determining ttie appropriate timing mechanism for the recommended traffic and 'roadway .improvemehts Tb Private FUnds as,b nly pfitiaatiah for Are.awide Traffic im acts. The ccctment is doted. The mitigation measure recommends that privates state and' . y fe4Oral ,funds be usued to; mitigate hrgawide traffic impacts., The pro 40 s Incremental- impact on this cumulative traffic impact is significant `cacm�use the funding aced. ms needed to provide revenue for future improvements have not been created. 1.a Additional ea;tt/west Roadways. The comment is noted. The feasibility and desirability of construction of the Lassen Avenue extension through, the Bell Muir area would be altered by the proposed in density y crease, The need ,for the extension is not the increased density, but .the capacityof other east/west connectors sufficient funding for the LLssen Avenue Extension would not be available from developers at the proposed density.In fact, this; roadway would encourage further density -increases along the new route. A second east/west roadway is not justified by the project and is not by a citify or county circulation plan (see Response to Comment I.61),pro�osed I.65 Defined dike Paths.The Bikeways Plan of the Chico General Plan is presented in Figure 3.2-4 of the Draft EIR. Hensbaw and Cussick Avenue are designated Class III Routes. The proposed project would not significantlyaffect the Bikeways Plan. Generally, conflicts between bicycles and vehioles can be significant. The 'proposed project would hot create ;significant bieycle hazards. (See page 3.2-16 of the.Drart ETR and response to Comment 1.44.)' I.66 E'edesrrian Crossing at Jav PartridaE,School. See Response to Comment 1.44 which addeesse.� the feasibility of the subject crossing4 i2ndividual m Draa � storrrainagesystemns. The requir�ementi for a to drain the project area is not a hydrologic requirement. The requirement is based on the county's standards for development at a certain density. Consultations with, county staff have indicated that subsurface storm drainage infeastrueture is not needed to -- accommodate site stormwater (Edell, 1086). It should be noted thatfurther density ihcreases (greater than 1.0 du/acre) would „squire underground infrastructure. Therefore installation of "underground infracture could encourage future density increase, by removing a deveiopmo,t constraint. 1.58 Nitrate Contamination and Densit•. The recommendation for use of hydrogeologic data to set the density standard Is noted. (See Response to Gamrrett 1.20.) The solution to the nitrate contamination involves the instalPrequirements IId careful land use planning abd developmentnfni�othet*gloca Eions. -L69-11itrate Action Plan Amendment. 7Phe project 'would req ` uire an amendment to the Nitrate tletion Plan Study Area Map: (See Response to Comment 1.20.) ' 1.70 Conditions Related to i•'ature Sel3er TrunkExtehsioh. The following comments are noted.: The city may not permit, a new trU' k line to the plant: it the property is to sewer, then it would have to 'be with the cond'urrence of the City of China, in accordance with the Brown and, r Ca�.dwell Plan: � (V S _ �, e .Ba,z�th Metrics Incorporated, Draft E��� itonmental _ Imna t Report for the North Valley Plaza Area Annexation, Prezone x'91 and Development Agreement (1985)• i dc1, Stuart, hssociate Civil Engines -r, Butte County Public corks Dbpar .personal and telephonei communications (1985 and 1986). 'Orant# Gene, District Manager, Cu,:lifornia Water Services Company, telephone communication (1986). ' �C#rey, Captain, Butte County Sheriff o s De,:,�,rtment, telephone communication ` (1986)• JJaWkins, John, Di'rision Chief, Butte County Fire. Department, 'telephone communication (1986) Menaley, Stan, Assistant Superintendent/Administrative Services, Chico Unified �l School District, telephone oummunication (1986 and 1987). mughes, Jerry, Chico Area Recreation and P:�,k District, telephone � cc.�,;munication (1986) tJHh & Associates, "Chico Urban Area Transportation Study" (1982), l;ando, Tom, Planning Director, Chino Planning Department, personal and telephone communication (`1986), Mathews, Bens Director of Elementary Education, Chico Unified School District, telephone communication (1986). �1i y ► Ron, En g , '- y p (1.086). _< cBlro ,inset Butte Count ., telephone communication lunez, Bob, 'Director of Public Works, City of rhico PUbl a Works, telephone communications (1986') iPalmeri, Sdwia, Associate Planner, City of dhico, telephone and "persona] communication (1986). peace, Johvj Exeeuti've Director, Butte County Farm. Bureau, telephone ° communication (1987):, Pierce, Elwin Assistant Design tngtneee Butte County, Public work* , g �' � � k, tel'ephonb communication Reid, T.om, Supervising 8ahitorianj Butte County Department of Envirbnmental Health, telephone communication (1986 and 1987)., Holls Anderson and Rol yNart',h Chico Area Storm DrainaAe .Studs (1985.).• � is Butte .Count. RolrService Anderson, the�NorthChicoArea of, A�t(198uj�blity StudSr:for Sancta Sewe Sellera. Cliff, Planning Director,, City of Chico, telephone. communication (198G)• 14-2 16• -- APPENDICES 16.1 initial Study - 16 2 Letters in Response to Notice of Preparation 16.3 List of Parcels Involved in the General Plan Amendment 16.4 Applicable Zoning Reg,.lations (A-5, SR -1) 16.5 Chico Area Greenline Policy 16.6 Minor Revisions to Figure 3.1-1, General Plan Land Use Map 16.7 Population,Data.;in Butte County 16.8 Demograpb a Data.. in Butte County 16: 9 16.10 Reasonably Anticipated Future Projects in the Area Methodologies g eand dmptions for Estimating the Costs of gatfon 16.11 Memo p*-, Supervisor Dolan, to Board of Supervisors Outlinin' an Implementation Program for the 8. Nitrate Action Pian 16.12 Discussion'of Public Improvement Financing Methods 16.,1 a - ` � � APPENDIR 1:6.Z TNITZAL STUDY .• AI'f�hNtT1 X IF COUNTY 'OF BUTTE ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMIST FORI•t (to a comp ete y Lea Agency) "ti4-�i-27,03 i . BACKCRAUNt1 I{ n 84•Q 3-!02` ATS 9 Vatious~ 1. Name of proponent Q Y/�11rT 1L .U—koard__of SIII)L-xVisors 1, Address of proponent and representative (if applicable) hiooberrylBurrell Bo._a-d of Sir�► t,�,� W� _ 2777 Alamo/2947 14ord Ave. Chica, CA 959;26 25 County Center )ri.1�-e_ Orov�lle, CA 9S9�� 3,I'rat(,%t �teszri do �,.<. tti n �.Gancral..Plan-Amendmcnt . I 1 • 1�IANDATM FIN2ING4 OF SIGNIFICANCI, NO•�. hoes thf-- proiLIC have the potential to degrade Lhc' gtral t}' of the c�ntironment, so' bstant all)' reduce the hataitat ofi a fish or wildlife species, cause a l Sustaininglevels, threaten to elimh inatea8plf= animal community-, redtnce the number or re trricttthe range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminite,impor'tant examples of themajor periods of Calirornia history or prehistory? h, hoes .the project have the )potential to achieve envi t�tCrm benr*tits to the tictriment of lolls.-term, envihOronmental goals? •(A short term impact on the Lnv)►'anmen"t is one w1ilch occuts in a relatively ;brief° prriod of time while 'long-term' 'impicts will emit►re into the future•) '�/' - - - t . floes the ro' e:. hwhich . ,vi ally limited,butctimulati el}'cansiderable?�q ject may imact - /` ' propon two or more separate resources whore the impact on each resource is relativelt small; but where the effect or the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) 0. Docs the project have environmontal e't`retts which will cause sub5t`antial adverse effects on ,human hei nes t either directly ar, indirectly?, lil;7'I Rltit,'A'I;1Ot�" (,To be completCd by the Lead Agency.) On tlobisis of this initial e�aluuton. UWE find the prafiosed project COULD NOT hai�e a siPnit`icant effect on the ent•i ronment and ,h. NFrA`fIVE DECLARATION will he prdpatrier 1%Wia rind that ))'though 'ithe proposed project could have a,s ; ENVIIAONNMExon aMPACTS.�y �t �� y ,► answers, p ��- es and ma be wers ,are required; on attached sheet(s)) YES MAYBE NO 1. EARTH. will. the proposal result in significant: � r. a n table earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacomen-S, compaction or overcovering of the soil? ' c Change in topography cr ground surface relief features? d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? ei Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off'-site? f: Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in-"iltation', deposition or eresicn which may modify the channel of - a r.Ver or stream or.the-bed -.of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? -- g,. Loss of prime agriculturally productive soils outside designated urban areas? h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides., mud- slides ground failure or,sim.lar hazards? 2. JA R. Will the proposal result in substantial: - a. Air emissions or deterior;ition of ambient air quality? bi The creation of 'objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? c., Alteration of air movdmen.t,,moisture, or temperat►are, or any 'change in Climate, locally or regionally? 3i WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial;. a . Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either - marine or, fresh waters! bi Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? C,. Need fotl of.f-Site surface drainageimprove' mentsi including vegetation removal, channel- itation or culvert installation? d. Alterations, to the course or flow of flood Waters? e. Change in the amount of surface water in any body water fg , i Discharge into surface waters` or in any _ alteration of surface water quality; Jnclud,ng } but not limited to temperature, dissolved ozygen Or turbidity? "^ gi Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of waters? ground h Ch;ange' in theguantity of ground Waters, �„ either through direct additions of With- drawals,,. or through interception of an aquiferbycuts , L 1. f wat Re uction i.nutheoamount''ofiWlt6 .�ilable fog` water pelie5;er�.�ise av public . l= .� Exp>osute of people or raperty to water re]l.a4ed hazards such as flooding? ;.- V 4, ' I ". p.,p suit in s�antial PI,'t1vT L�Fc 1 1 the ray osal r � a:. C ang�. in the., dl.v`ers �; ty of. species, or nOmbe t` of any species of plants (including trees-, crops, and aquatic shrubs, grass, ,plants)? b''.` Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare of or endangered species plants? C. Introduction of new, species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenish= menti oi' existing, species? -L d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? � 5,. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animal -5 including reptiles, fish and shell fish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique, 'rare or endangered species of animals? c;:, _Introduct,'io;n of nets species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? g,, QiJererioration to existing fish oT wildlife habitat? G. `y015Eproposal will the ro p p 1 result in substantial: n;, Increases 'in existing noise levels? Fxposure of people to severe ,noise levels?' 7. LIGHT /A110��i.x �, Will the proposal produce j� sTg". n ' c:�n I—IgIa xir;d glare? ■ 3. LiuN,D USES will the ptupo,isl result in a su stantial alteraltion of tho present or planned -of land use an area? 9'; NATURAL RESOURCES:. Will the proposal 'result in substantial: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural.- resources? - bi Depletion of any non-renewable natural resources? , I0. RI'Sk AP UPSET. Will the proposal inVo'lve: a A ris : o . ex 1o`ion or the release of hazard - t ous statstamces includin but no n t 1im:ited to, LL 02'11, pes -11,C des chemicals. or radiation) in the event of an accidentorup' et coni i_tions'? b. PossibleInterference h an emergency , response planoremergency evacuation plan? p p g ll. POPULATION. Will the pvoposal alter the lbcAtion, str2'bcitlog, density, or growth i'atc Or. the human popillat.ion` HOUSINGo Will the proposal affect existing housing, o ke creata p dem and .Cor additional hotising,? 1'ES NME O 13. TRANSPORTA.TION/CIRCULkTION. Wi1.1 the prop�:sal result in 1 a, Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? b. Effects on exist-;ing, parking facilities, or demand fcr new parking?. c. Substantial im a-ct ongexist n t ` p g ransport�.y:�.on systems? d. S'ignifYcant alterations to present patterns of circulation or, movement 0f people and/or goods e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f: Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an.effect upon,, cr result in a need for new dr ala;ered governmental services. a. Fire protection? b. Police protection" c. Schools? c. Parks or ether recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including .goads? f. Other governmental services?' 15. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in a. Use of substantial amouits of fue.l.or energy? b. Substantial increase ire demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of news sources of energy? 16. UTILITIES. Will the propsal result in a need for new s,7steat, or substantial alterations to the following: a: Power or natural gas? .....:. • _ b; Communications systems? Water: d. Sewer or septic tank? _L�► e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. HOW HtALTH. Will the proposal result in: a, reat of any health hazard or potential on health hazard ;(excludinig mental health)?: b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18, AE5THETIC84 Will the uroposal result in theobs, of opento thetxublicn or willtheiproposalorestalt e. creationof an aesthetcall� o£fensiVe site open to view? public 1,6.1.4 c, �� _. YES, 4:. �1.� 1 3 NU , y 3-CREATFUPI� 11 the r . , t pr result `in��� impact � . �� p � �; � quantity ;,.Upon thr ualit or of existing recreational opportunities? .. 204 CULTURAL RESOURCES.. a ►i'il t_ie: proposal result in the alteration of or 'the destruction, of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physteal. or aesthetic effects to a Prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? Does c. ;.he proposal have the potential to cause a ,physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?{ d will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALWkTION AP Various January 19`84 the Board of Supervisors initiated a Genernl Ilan Amendment front Orcharei and. Field Crops to 'turban" for a. 400 acre or more area known as Bell -;Muir. Bounded by the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks to the test, Lost Ave. and Ilenshaw to the south, Alamo Ave, to the east, 'and8011anMuir A.,venu s to the north. Tills area has long planted beeres In f►ti i-l�obru:�r.y 198.4, ide nts of the Ball -Muir arca i7ide- ponc3elttly applied for a General Man Amendment from Orchard :end yield Crops toagricultural-Residential, 1 acre minimums. - The lo -Cation of` this General' Plat Amendment is essentially tiie same, but the boundaries are irregular, encompassing more or less 270 acres. r - - Tare project is .located on Class I and II soils: Vi.na 1�oam, Vina Pine Sandy Loam, and Fart*elf: Loam. These" soils are cap" able of supporting a wide variety of agricultural crops, Many of the: parcels are planted in orchards: l Forty acres is the preferred, minimum parcel size, however, small as 10 acares earl be viably farmed ai,d provide a sec- ondary income, *u,sumang 1 acre, TnilliffltM parcels from ttinro or less 2532' to more oress 312 3 lots could be created, and more or less 261-522 i 1t k, homes ,tes developed. Tel,eplione ilYterv.iow B111 Olsen 5%?%8�`��a"��- 1 Farm Advisot- Wa hlits St400 lb/at .40ac x $ i O/lb $54,400 (1,000 ac, cosi, k 40 = $40,000); •k net $$14,400' moeietate' i.neonie(county average ificonre:) _ 2 Rinigate application, 3 hoard App'lic9tion. 4 Build out. is 2 un%'ts per parcel. * As parcel sizes decrease econoti cs of Scale work to prol>or- tonally increase fanning costs 16 1-a it M if variances are granted or boundary line modifications area approved, these figures could be 55% higher, More specifically - 261 -522 homesites equals,c 626-1,252 persons 115-229 school children 6,260-12, vehicle trips , daily 1 newcommunity park (more or less S acres) .6-1.2 new police officers runoff 432 cfs (see Chico Area Land Use Plan) The very size and intensity of the project dictates that an Environmental Impact Report (LT It) or a suppliment to the Chico Area Land Use Plan:EIR be prepared. In 1982 ern - EIR was prparecl an the C}lco' Area Land Use Play which. included these properties. back Regional setting, ails and other ground information which would also apply to this project are sufficiently covered, 'and should be referenced. i The E<IR does not discuss circulation 'within the "Bell -Muir" area ` and recommends a holding; zone of A-5 or A-10 until a specific Ian is repared to discuss circulation and drainage, (Page 122)x, p p of the Shasta Union Drainage Assesment Dis- Bell -Muir, outside s trict, has been identified as lacking drainage facilities and ex- periences localizedflooding.. (Page' 85) Development of Bell Muir would be contrary to the Land Use Element policy of restricting development in flood prone or areas otherwise lacking drainage improyements. II* was further recommended that a district(s) be formed to fund" all public improvements,., While this project is located outside of the high nitrate area, the Division o.f Environmental [health states continued urbanization on septic tarkt, will undoubtedly increase ground water detLriora- tion. (Me,mo of March 20, 1984). The Chico Unitiod School Dis'tricL has noticed Butte County that continued approval of development projects within the district, absent a funding 'mechanism, constitutes an unmitigated signifi- cant. impact, This, 9,1k may be prepared referencing the Chico Area Land Use Elk for background. information; and ,focus on checklist itis -ins l 1: overco'verirng of soils erosion . 3� dxainage, increased tea _1, and giound waver quality 8,11;12: land dile i"slues such as j+u;tification and need for denera'l Plan Amtridment impact on the already approved development lin the east nclu(iing the extensive investment lit public improvemeflts . t1 A PEND1% lei 2 betters InResnonre to Notice of P�xeptiratiaD ft PLANNING OFFICE `out's Coy. �9 Ca�ruti. FEB. 241984 + Bax 34:'i. C+fo February"�3 ► 1984 aCiT+ nw:KGNt J c!, MC bA 154 `" i#utte county Plasnning Department 25 County Center Drive oroville, CA. 95965 RE: Midway Orchard, He dinger/Sweet Nectar, and Bell -Muir General Plan Amendments The Cit of Chico finds t. the proposed projects noted above are in direct T' conflict with'the 1980 Compromise Plan and urban growth policies established after exteneiFe discussions between the City and County. In our opinion., each of the above referenced projects may generate significant impacts an independent consultant should be retained to prepare a Draft Environasenal Impact Report addressing the follow Ang items for each project area: 1,. The justification and need for the General Plan amendments .,, The Impact on the already approved development in the east including the extensive .investment in public improvements as a result bf development in agriculturaj areas ,est of the adopted Greenli'ney 3, impacts on public services and public improvements inciud:n, but .not limited to fulls` improved streets, storm drainage schools, parks, police and fire protection. �� Project impacts on "'shallow Well domestic: water systems] and in particular, potential increases in nitrate level"s vrithin each project area. ` Traffic generation and circulation problems as a result of'5. full buildout in the project area. ke to be kept Wbrmed of any action to be take The City' would 1in on the above proji:cts, and is looking forward to reviei�irig and commenting on eriVirt�nmental iocutnents prepared for the prop6aed projetts. �; Sincerely: " 9dwin Ri Palmeri Assistant Placlner EAP: pts ' G Inter-DePairtm nta 'Aa morandum .�:.:.. sem+* ca. ,•. xr©. Soper; isor Hilda Wheeler AUG 3 1 1984 upervisdr Jane Dolan , Orov�io; �ilaraq I .�saar Proposal for Bell -Muir Area U'm August 24, 1984 The Bell -Muir area, 456+ acre,.A-5 Zoning district (bounded.NESW ky properties fronting' on Muir Ave. -Bell Rd. the S -R zoning just west of Haymuchsdebatethe Henshaw Ave.,, and Hwy. ;32), has been the sublast four years. '! r, The area. has been zoned A-5 since the mid -60's and with a- couple or exceptions (Eisenhauer rezone blip on 8e11 Rd and Foreman homesite segregation on Rodeo Ave.) there have been no new parcels created smaller than 5 -acre in :15 years. However, many smaller than 5 -acre parcels were in existence prior to the effective. date; of the zoning (some created legally, some not). The focus of the argument has been the 1980 proposed Chico Area Ceneral Plan amendment process. Durin g the 2+ years debate on that plan, at least 3 proposals 'were set forth and interminally discusseds 1) placearea in agricultural General Plan (GP) designation and leave zoning as A-5; 2) place area in Agricultural -Residential GP designation and re -zone it to a Y=ac:re minimum zoning; 3) place the area in a study Area and hire necessary consultants (engineers, planners) to develop a drainage and traffic plan and analyze other in,pacts before changing the zoning., This proposal included pro- viding a mechanism to have profierty owners in area pay for this study. Decemberm1983 �8he Board �nditoai.edparGPsamenbrs approvthat In h dment that ,would put this area in scmetiunspecifed urban GP designation and some unspec- ed zoning. (Snce the Boa.rcl did not specify, CEQA requires an f.i tial. be:preshmed to be high density resa analysis of the "worst case" possible which could den ) In 1984, a property owner petition - . representing 270 acres ofarea vas presented proposing a GP dsig 'nat.i.on of Agricultural -Residential and a zoning of 1 -acre mihyimum. An EIR has been deemed necessary :for both the Board-inikiated and property owner petition`s: -Thuds is important to point out as s_ people hold the erroneous belief that this area has been studied when` it hasn't. The Board has several ehoices:'to mske: i . Continue to Argue this matter vrithout bringing clarity or closure, This i' really what we've been doing since September 1982. : Allow the Board-inikiated amendment ko proce'ed in ttie ttsttai mannc:ic. This would modh the DoparUnent '-Vil-I geL. to it As they can in I'dilt of 0-ttablisho-d priorities. This is a sloi� � roces,5. - t SupervisorHilda Wheeler August 24,, 11584 Page, 3► li'. ^,a the Board--initiated amendment and leave area in agri ' cu't0ral designation and. still zoned A-5 A. Allow the Property owner proposal to Proceed' an the usual manner. This would mean they write, or hire someone to write., an EIR and when that is done hearings are scheduled. 5, befiWL the area proposed for GP and zonae change, specify what GP :designation and zoning is proposed, develop a pian for handling s drainage and traffic, determine aaper parcel charge, and set up ` the proceduia allowed in state law, to have property owners xeim-- burse the county for the cost of the plan and pay their.pro rata share for improvQmetks asi they develop.: 6. Select a consultant, to prepare an EIR, forthe property owmer application, require ;the Board-initiated application to be analyzed as a.aalternative and require those signing the zoning` 1 petition to )pay these costs. This is what the department recommended and we tabled July 1,1 I recommend 45. Since a araiinage plan is already underway, it could be isaid, -this proposal has been started, albeitpi:, kea.`!. This choice does not answer what to do with the existing small lot Paying their share of necessar„y improvements, but it certainly gets us further along than 1, 2, 3,; 4, ;or 6 in settlingthe Bel!-Muir controversy. w M r r -. froinsproperty aowners �ntttaeoarea tolleave tt Tiaere is much support. things as they are. ;I would say that there would be tremendous support for that frog all who travel +t`Y: Esplanade and w. East Ave.o nine A art of many Y strong desire on the s y property (clearly 270 acres .worth) to have the opportunitytodivide their property. -� I I I recoamimerid ; fqr these reasons i �. It is fair to honor the request of prop ert wnersfor u s to consider, changing the'GP and zoning in the area. �I y o 2. Tt is un air to burden the taxpayers with the cost of the legally required EIR, planning analysis, etc., necessary to honor this request: 3. Since it has been a long established, appropriate, fiscally conservativeol:iY c b .Butte County, to have development nY projects p � their opn - y, it: would seeh�i a very poor reversal of policy and an ina ro riate, an llocatioof public re ouz`ces to subsid— ize development in this area. 4, we, as represent. ativ �s of the ptblsc interest, muat seen answers to, at least, the drainage and traffic Impacts that Will be I % ,y �4 'Hi , Supervisor10,a Wheeler ,august 24 1984 page 2 ti credited if ttii,s area develops into smaller pargels. Everyone who has expressed dost re to develop his/her property their fair share of 'develop- has given verbal support to paying ment costs, and improvements. aD/sp i to Bettye Kircher ' Nina Lambert _ - Board merbtr5 w �I r , ij Discussion on choosing consultant for preparation of an environmental 2&tU.r) impact report for the Bell-Muir are pursuant to Resolution 75-57, as amended.a Motion: REAFFIRM TBE FACT. THAT THE BOARD HAS GIVEN DIRECTION THAT THE BELL-MUIR AREA BE .CONSIDERED FOR CONTINUED STUDY AND CONSIDERATION OF A GENERAL PLAN CHANGE AND REZONE AND ;ALSO THAT TH ENVTRONMENTALe IMPACT STUDY BE COND[it'PED I1V-HO USE j BY' STAEF M S 2 - 3 Dation Amended: TO INCLUDE THAT 'AT DIRECT STAFT' TO GO AHEAD AND 'Cbr 'djCotdTRACi' WITS EARTH MEs^RICS TO DO TH8 EIR FOR THE BELL- W11-t2 S'T'UDY AMI . - M S 'Vote. 1 2 3 4 5 (MOTIoN TABLED. SUPERVISORS DOLAN AND WHEELE9 TO WORK TOGETHER TO t=E REC 3DAT,IONS ,ON WWAT IS BEST IN O.MM FOR PEOPLE TO DEVELOP i ACRE PARCELS.) D0�►CtD q.• : t��'.�R�TSOlt5 1�fill'�U � , r� tp-g - .yaly 17 y 584 r. �n 16.2 ,. fit . BUTTE COU,IfY :FIRE DEPARTIN FIRE PROTECTIO<i STANDARDS REVIEW DEMOPMENT NAME £IR No. 84;=37 Aper Lor LOATiON East Avfrntte aret Chico DATE 2 / _. 21 / 84 Ttiiz project trust meat the requirements in the Uniform Cali;. Department of Forestry ' evildfng � Code amended to Butte County standards. � Butie County Fire Doparitnent Cooperative Fite Protection In accordance with Suction 13.00 (fire Standards) of the I#rbvrment Standards, the water requirerents for this RICHARD D TILLER parcel/project are: (Applicable stand,rds are cl;ecked.), ( ) 1.1.0 - 1-1 Requirement Class T, Pr water suplly for Battollon Chio fire protection will not be 'rerleired. 13.01-2, Requirement Cl-,,ss 2 A pressurized water systei with adequatrz numbers of hydrants is pr!?- OFFICE (9i6y fiQ1"s7= ferred, but €f this is not feasible, the following option will satisfy the fire department require meat for water. a, Water storage tanks with a capacity of 10,000 gallons or more, equipped with direct all weather attest and fire department connection (S-79) C ) b. In groand swir"Ming pools equipped with a drafting connection or drafting access; or, C ) c. A dry standpipe systenr plumed to a reliaNle trate► sourep. Such 5tandpi'pe system will not exceed 1,000 feet in loot,.. There mvtt be at least 10,000 gallons of water availatrle and strategically located for each l0 dwellings, or portions ttece}f--�tlacample, 1.1 r€srnlling�, �orict reyuIfe-two se�ptratedasmw-res). Prbvi,ions must be made to €'nsure that the voi3jer stored is a"lw<t,s available and accessible for use under all' weather cohditio ') 13.01.3 Requirei-ent Ctrs 3, A pfess,rrited community water system is required. Tentative hydrant ro—Cations are i.ndicaxed o^ the attaCt°vd prellminary map, Final locations must be exactly indicated and recorded on the final ro.03.1 Number of hydrants required _LL _ , maximum hydrant to hydrant spacing: feet, hydrant sixo 2r�r r�„�,., and foGtalled itccurding to €lut'te t;ounty Publ €c Works Pecirication i»riilE`<<' �iil� E'J S-27 and requ€re aer,td or local water- agent�y, Requl"r-Lvd Tire flows ark gallons per rninute. Mitigation floes listed under t)t.her­c,pnditinns, system ca ab a ie m,etinTM the fire for fire protettion is requieed, The preferable system is a hydrant 13.01-d Re uiresit�nt G1'+�sf; �. Wtrter p , flow t•erlui,emt!nts. if this is not feasible, a system involving 'ind'e- pendent pumps, static water storage and drf standoires may be substituted, Such a System is subject to the: approval of the fire departmertlt The avdilable wator flow from such a system must flow gallons per minute. The minirrum v,tlrrme of water in storage must be. gallohs. 'Prbvi=sibn3 must be made to insure the system Wrovided i!; maintained to its design capacity, 13',ol-5 kequirercent CI I Premluriied wi ttti` for fine protection is available within l*000 feet of tho the fire de els. I i created parcels, Id }iNu of F�eat'stiig the cost of installing a fire hydrants) the .developer nay ;pay into p enc 1'�drant fund., Pay iii-lien fee into hydrant fund based rutet agency on S1.25 per frontage foot. Frontage i5 indicated by the Ped line on the attached map, Appeoximate ;fee V, is S Final frontarfe cdlculation to be made by surveyor and recorded on fina'i map,. lkrontage calculation wr` iTl �intlusfe* both sides of the stretst on includedstr`aets. r ) Required" water system for fire pr,btectjon trust be Itistalied and operating prior to build'in.g consteuttian, *X) Other Conditions'; ob edtzons.. � Res obnse times for the first 3, fire engihes is as follows; COFjBCPO I 5tati'on N � , i mute.' 2,, Station l! minutt�s 3 StationIn firehhatard'Y d enrent d't' 'the Butte tbunty General "Plan* this project area Is classified tis a WiLl; AM C TEft CUup y Piet Warden G++t .ice ieriuC�fdsv 16 s By, —�`�` * I 16_'2 6 'Battalion Chj-ef �J= Iot&I watoo eO dhts l,,'6r hydrbn(s Ny,,;be more,restflttivt . BUTTE, Cir' TY r3 ',,,-AIMl GQ? �s`','YS�I[!�i � ►TR.TVE VILLQ; CalFd2PI�9G.COJ i ��, PHONE: 534- :Cal ' provillai WliYtrrr�:q. T. Lynn )fanhart, Env. 'HorE:.lth , D�,'l"k . February 14, 1954 ENVTP0: VIFfi'IAfx E V„ MATIOTT Enclosed I relimir:try data ottr+ ofF� c ha.,. rece�lved'or crier��trti concern a0. P o the 11ryllos.%'r.project; Board o`C 5upervisOra UneraL Plan A Ildri�n .r1..� o0-rt:hurd -c :ind fiold "croti to "thy: 't"rrbart sicl`� of the :-_reanIint: roE; ' rU'T �Zli'.r �1"1;Uit •ct4r 0iJwt1. d a 0 1, tlU vl [, i rc, 5URMrv1,1 r oticaludra�, othe south t;cr�c �-mc1 `Y'�iGG►G , C)fl 4EW 63J sy -7 alio �`t :l UC`^.ltttT fi11 t11e Elt)'2`C t « a ` K�13c9 1�t llaa xn„:Nisr ;Ili t+.:4 Chic'c1. - Na. 8.4,-. � I,c Y % W. -s a,ed . mtalo n cv+.1 Filisr v� ul- rot of .��,S1�Y , •� Ei ' l . bS. i Iita � f�P€1C tom+ and s6il bi: ,reylr`b1S�T c'i, ii cu,v.lrortr: ciw.,'xL: tf:.^.11:': r1t,..E:lt.i':i;r' i?s ��'..,�c^ 1«1Y.i` )GG. ill. t`it1C�i , .t.I J. �:l•�. P#eEatL,da De.tInv tI.M., dr, an EfI l ionirut�ta't Tt i:ict `F,��por4. Jetx <.oizt. ,c+f irz tta?s;ztri..'i1w., 3ti�a.; fot? iti `1ei41.1y or orio;: �, Y ``n t ctinct`�1 til� l��Z raj�zt�s 'tn ,iia E�rir or iw - L`ti « t`Y110f1� in, vx a Lnl�Ji"�' 3•"1t k�� + s 4 �y lf, tSQt i Y i - 1 1r a!ii4t t 'i�1 w,�� o�� ti1� �i��D�1�-:+tit�kcii d�ii.a�• It no x•c�po,,�fi i� �i«'k1 {1.30:1-d U-rit tharo art wo ::-1G:xt. k n tis Yr : �;r�z YnIl can rpr 0Vj.cW, . 51914 i"M RJ d 4 t' CT M iy. sx n ti Jlg LL Gc�y�crt�L.rs �r ..: X52+Y�3�t�.�+�.�1��`�1i�� ifl'�Wi hk� tal�ar}ie•� i�Z�� l ltc)t Septic �utk ty:�+`s : � wc-� ► v , Nowt,re,a- '�"` '� via}�� ��N+'�`, •{i�c (�i�j �� 'e>r at +eA 6 it IHiA.r »rCo t r= cz ri �r�i .a � f � �a..� � _.te i l t_t!,rt _3Q �.' c hi�Lirci�t rt b 6 icic.s�.. �.l�c,rteuYei ;��t�-FEr�►�rtae-►i bevel000+w�. t��a ec►�'ir �:L4c �x c� ctt .�_,,'�� .J �-r•.s.+. �s.S �S�e t, ski f 75 y a' �r�'+a �w tc ►'t`.� ,. �4.' xt M{jk:�.��! 1 ter BUTTECQ '-LA �� J roc c©cfl,�1 ss ��1, �a �� _ �� � � � all, Iry COUNTY CENTER; DRIVE ,0R6V',:I LLE, CALIFORNIA PHONE: 534-4601. T0; John Mandonsa Public +orRs Last'.. February 1.4, 1984 Rtiz PPOJECT FEVIL-0 AIr'D EUVl.kO1MMENTAL EVALUATION E:t _osed is prtliminiry data out office h .i.received or enertl ted concerning the follow itg pro,jt°oto Board of Supervisors Generaf Plan AlTi:ndtle ct ;. from. orchard and fiQ'1d Crap$ to th(I uruan side of the greeir1ine zl Le C1 U is a—FT MITLi I, s TV -75,1C U 0 11 L Lite S61JOICiTI r' face s R-Mroad track, on tho' soffit t by 17,11st Avenue and tleashaX4 �- Avenue , orl tim Ott 6 kiy` +161�tiLt oil file ttoT'tt 6y, 0011,toad. and Muir 1'1tRemle in Northwest Chico No. 84 5'7 t.oF84_01.13=02 We are- malting = anzi%*z- ; ent of jjn,:ss-b1 o E`,nv-i ronr vntol impacts anti will be prepar3nt5 4n 01111�!r A Not;Qtive Declara iulrit Mitigated ttegat v Pccl.:,,„.atvit'rl or till &Mronnl, 114';11 1trprict Report. FleMse providii- oay rat -"Mil .tatczentv-, ideamn tor or op cions Volt t':tll jo ',t+ow,* arvia of coo otn .Or th:lt eolate to el mor Fhys:ical, noc:,i-A, or ccbnomic vb tale n t.hi i p6-ojvat may generate, +y 'Wt;l1 111 d l`'yn. C-14 tilt? dat' 1f n ].b Ln r tt-d b >hi. it3• t-jr;;v 'th:m it, :A ttLl. be rtooti;e4od that thlery are no sr;.all'it•tnt Cnvi;r-el. m?nt' al whiHl x'atC 9:.lti#t1 from the project. ps:.istitltic you can provil tie., We a i eroc s+ -t t c nny a 5rcc�rcl.J, pu'tto Co: pt "Ihg Gomttt -= Qrovillet CalioJ'�ie fi: cl tldr gtio- p It. -ming 'Ie i ician . CM...�.,E.L!r L' *y'yt �'.►L•c� ,t fl u,tJ�CI�� �'Y"1�1'-{i.� �fL'�"t.11�Ct1 r�11.r .tlt�+i'�i� BUTTE cl,��.�,r.C; ��� �b°����c cat0-11 ccua»Y cE t Tl:i; DRIVE, - Cf() VI - ��a�i�• '.I••1�E�U;I , 'ct�IIFaI;tiI7A 9'a 8.5 I+Q: Count •_ 5111:1 1• i C k Bpi ie Co. Planning C<onur. I E\tI rt ltt i y Jilt, J984 ' AND C?rovil;o, California l £rscla ,d ij t}° e arl= xaxf dat,_, ate oft; ; iry ht >~r�:c w�x_.A L the ollc,irirrc r r�'i 4 :, . cx fnarozuted co cernip n;rr:°c I;otrcl oI' :its y0 I 5 C,e at, rai Ia! �tsl Al iel�l�„tt t frOLI ortharc' ay}cd ..__.. �. i t, )Lit c rJ )x\ + r ...,.� { 1 i t.. It t't } its 1 S r:. il'i. OM1:" t [ t e n x4llcll. Y i vrt t1»1.,3 (1+=�, �ta't'i�. 17„ I�aClr1C i11,�to.,,� t.tcl•:� , } « �+e<�i.-k t IMt U�i'Ei::wtm • , Cr_. Lxtl atld t� .r,�l nll tk." l;;�l fill �� lr�s l I.cl,lti riliii` Zit 1yl��Ef iL` it, iir�}'r�.:,� C [:fla rt +Je arc • es • ti " m Ri. W EItI w t' V b i d •fix "an �"""v+,W U! •a.xp';"" 4r"i. «itili:t<<»', r� t_Evi}�."t xrc r :k FM '!C l^' it bep CZ 1 Rt*i ��t: �tr1 �• ✓«C "�'E4 tY"},rT Sr" %ui �, rt ' e .Sa �`� : i h:...,�t•`a. L,J. $rL. X..� i �»,J • A'fbll..i1_ Eiji-i�t`r?..ryr.a ;� t ji:;It C4'1.i c" t' ,I.t! ;Vt1'SX ilr"t' Y 'Sif { j 1Ci._ y kKe; 1I W. 'i`y"ra't»lr;} 4^ C1Lt:1IDr2". �'` J Gx } f. k .',t � ` �t.`%t" :�:CI�.0 '. 'S .+'* i, �, � r'� 't, • r" 1 �, � : _� i- i tx J • ` i '} i?i..�xt+a to I 1 l;rt�r•:t sI x• l .r�F r r" # t°a r r. Pi u 1gai i if .tit` tl, r "t 1 ..e ti+ j,; •r l 1 r to tart t h eo ttree m• -. We, 't-puree' ."}1.fr s nder6lYRick Rodr:ijide,"E •{ P14httin 'i'e?�uiln l.tti G�.r t�:nt 'There is no patoX «-t�tiva tv } prati sclei� t o the proposed arb'ect. by the ,tiE "e`z't5u l y-:5?Teri` 1"`tTii t estab�i�hetl resi.cietlti.`ti �`lre«�is hcar this plt}jorf: i;, provitlerl on. an &W—in, 01.1 tt ;;Ls..,.. . rte. -a t r o�l n �'`" 17t k . i,., would baa at leases l.5 tllirt'utes. �� t�lA-th. •projtmt eL�w- +Y+4 Gi�rel� eurrexl't re> rind with no i}rc�j[+z«�t�d signific�n increases dur �-�btarl�ttary��i'�str�sr}ts, •�ixs,:t�e i���x.. „� meat iaould not he , y i • of t3+oia-p z.zter �h;lit tlir« t:1�1't'i7ht zhtlot oloped are—' receives, �t►C.'�#!' i=y-c l :�. !��-�-$et*ViCas $i;� 4I �`e 1 � yt,ti\ � L stra'ih existing m.- �tivn. th0. e1..�p l `C�hl� 'c"te; j:jht 't`C'C 1}x E' x..5t« Ee+l�;� I• ', } - ability i5 fi2e�t its mand4te(l O.gjic�hxs] )Ii l i.t° + . i« l l ' « . a ' '.t aree, , , x oe . r r►t� r'r unihdorptitc�te} t °n � {t P �1DIX 16.3 LIST OE PARCELS --:, I?i OLVED IN THE .GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SESSOR PARCEL NUMBER ACRES 042-02-21,22142 28 t 042-02-10 20 042-02-20 10 042-02-54 4 042-02-17 2 042-02-6, 7, 101 - 30.3 042-02-9j 10 _ 10 042-02-6, 1, 101 042-02-23 21, 042-02-16 Z 042-02-190 4.8 042-02-99 5 642-02-101-_ . `18.5 I - 4.8 042-02-89 ti 042-05.5 8 9.9 042-05=33' 4 042-05-14 73 042-05-34 ,, g 042-06-15 10 042-05-35 62. kineral Only 0,42.-06-56. 5 042-051-24 2.5 042-oda-65 5 04245-64 5 042-0247 4' fit. o ASS RCEL Mil -MER ACRES 042,62-98 5 042-05-67 4.6 A42-02-35 2 Iff 042-06-1'7 4.8 1 042-06-76 4.6 042-07-83 to 042-05-615.1 ■ f _ (C) Minimum lotarea required; The requirements of section 24-33 of this Code notwithstanding, the minimum lot area in A-5 zones shall not be less than five (5) acres. (Ord. No. 17.50, § 1i 8-31-76; Ord. No. 2167, § 1, 11=25-80) Secs. 24.73, 24-74. Reserved. x Sec. 24=75. A-1.0 (Agricultural) Zone. (a) Uses permitted., (1) One single-family dwelling per parcel, including mobile homes; (2) General agricultural farming, horticulture, commercial livestock, poultry production, grouting and harvesting forestry products; warehousing and storage; (3) Accessory buildings and uses pertinent to the permitted uses, including agricultural processing plants; (4) Ifou sing favileges (includi, ng trailers ) to .accommodate: only employees and their families employed by the owner or operator of the premises; and provided further that such housing facility shall be considered; ae essory to the main building and shall conform, to the provisions pertaining to required yard and open space for dwellings; Y� g► (5) mining, quarr in commercial ekdavation and wood Processing plants; (6) Hunting and fishing `camps, including those which accomriiodate recreational vehielea and travel trailers ' providing that said recreational vehicles aid travel trailers shall not be used for year-round occupancy: (b) Uses requiring use permits; The following uses are pet ,witted ,subject tosecuring-a use permit in each case: (1)' Segregation of homesites, pursuant to the require- ,meats of se ctIon 24.54; 'rte .. , Segregation of agr�cultUral processing uses, Pursuant to the requirements of section 24.55: i 1644-1 r � :2 1.162, Sit -1 (Suburban Realdentla]) Zone, (A) Utica tse'rmtted' (1) One single-family dwelling per parcel, not including }eta, trailers or mobile- homer; (2) Accessory buildings pertinent to the permitted uses; (a) Agricultural uses excepting a minimum lot area of thousand five hundred sixty (43,660) square forty-three feet to be devoted to residential use and the folio ing additional requirements for each animal kept on the premises: or (ar ,For each horse Or head of tattle swine over hundred one year of age --Eight thousand one twenty-five (8,125) square feet. oat--'I`wo. thousand .(%000) (b) `For each sheep or g -__ square feet, (B) C Uses requiring use perm.it:] The :following uses [are use permit in each ease, ' permitted] subject to securing a (1) Col# courses and country clubs; O Public and ire - quem -Public uses iocludounds;ing uschools rches f and and playgr ho�sses, hospitals, parks p ublic utility buildings; (3) Sales tract office. 2"3 shall apply excepts, G) [Ste requirem ents.7 Section Ing lot width and lot area 1) The minimum lot area per -dwelling unit; shall not be he provisions of section less than on macre, 8 (2) The minimum lot vr* dth shall not be less than one (13C) feet, the provisior►s o% ,section hundred thirty- 2-33 notwithsnding• (Ord. No 1760, r lfiX4_4 .`� ArTrWJIX 16_5 CHIdo AkEA IREENtIN£ POLICY VI. CHICQ AREA GREENLI`NE In addition to the other pijlicies of the Butto County General, P la , the following policy is applicable, to the Chico Area Land Use plait: A. PUitEOSES",' .rte. .�. _ a That puVposes of this policy, are: a) To defile the limits of future urban development which may occur on agricultural lards in the Chico Area of Butt(: County b) To provide for the long-term protea:tion of jagricultuTal resources of the Chico Area of Butte Countlly, c) To mitigate the threat to agricultoral regsoIir(.es po; -ed r'i by urban encoachment into and conversion of a rit-u:ltural lands in the Chico Area of Butte County. d) To reduce agricultural/urban conflicts in the Chico :Area of Butte County. e) To establish County goope"ration with the City of Chico in land use planning of 'urban and agricuIttural lands located in the Chico Area of Bunte County. f) To identify urban development limits in or near agri- cultural lands within the County's ChicoArea Land Use Plan by use of a certain,hold dashed boundary, line, g) To establish a certain and clear policy text.. for Butte County's Chico.Area Land Use Element which will enhance and uphold the aforementioned 'boundary Line and ;policy, text. h) To establish certain land use designations for the Chico-Area of Butte County, in conformity -with the afore- mentioned 'boundary} line and policy text;, B. FINDING The Board of Supervisors 'of Butte Count,hereby find and determine thatr y p g a) Bu.tt.e County possesses valuable a rc•ultiural lands with p p the finest growing climates r�.me a,-ad non- rYmp sails and one of the ® inb)Agracullture and its related bus �s ' finesses are critical. to Butte County"s economic stability: Inappropriately placed urban developmInt in the Chico Area of Butte County threaton_s the continued economicviability and cultivation practices of commercial; "agrIL cultuxa in the Chico Area; c) :At present,, the Chita reasof Butt( County is substantially surrounded by agricultclral lands on its northwestern, western, an,.; southwestorn borders. These agricultural lands play a_vital role in rhe. overall economic vitality of Butte County and must be conserved: d) The Chico Area of Butte County has experienced the continued oonvexsion off'Valuable agricultural lands to urban and suburban developments Unless the Land Use Element of the Butte County General Plan, as it pertains to the Chico Area, is amended 'to include an. ,urban limit line :,atnd a clear policy telk , it is likely that the ChxCo Area. o'f Butte County 'Wall continue to experience such conversion in the futurK.,, with signific--�t aciVerse effects on the viability of agricultural uses its the Chico ,,Area 16ry p ej' It is cxii+cally important to the citizens of Butte be e��tablethenagr.dier 't ghat t<he Chico Area. Greenlne `'oun ►ricultural 'lands 2ind to ensure that a�` n to conserve , cultural viability of ag'T ed byrprem premature inappropriate destroyed by p is not}permanently �,onvers�on to no rl-agr'icultiaral uses. will Area of Butte .County of the Chico f1,The population of Chico General Plan estimates The City f era continue `to .grow. to 71,100 an urban area population rang Ch from i,vi�ich will result. in urbarriza'ton. I by the year ?.Q9�, the Chico area. There exist in the of t� to 1,600 acres cn � roductive agricultural soils Chico Area of Butte County P developmjnt,re ahead ' committed to future urban and, suburban soils capable of supporting soils as well as less Productive �, pment. Such less productive and suyurban devterly `the urban limit line i • of areag ezlerall located easterlyline is by this orditlancmittealproductiveess an 1,aagricultu al lands established established to protect urcom 1 it is likely, based upon Count,, ti in the Chico Area :,f` Butte growth 'rill trends, that future urban and suburban g committed lTe duse historical not be directed towards thosuxbandand hsuburban ich are aland . to or capable of supporting that g) It is ',he desire nf the people of Butte; County -planned cdrectpd odate ni future urban land d�'thepChicorAreared shall beto popu -,_kt%o7,1 growth 7L on the l�xban Side of the Chico Area Greenliile land development accummr�da.ted Such di raction acrd accommodation of urban essential component of the con- d to be an is hereby declare Agricultural Side of a,gri.cultuxal uses on the Ag tr.e of the people servat'i0 of --It, is further of . BIltte -Chico Ares �,reenl�ne the des .Y •, f*' als of the County , 0,:EButteCount that publico or der ublic o ficial" cif the City of Chico In With population cc�,pexate olicp s :�aurpuse..._of accrmmodating planned that this P y' : acricuitural lairds in; the Chico Area,, g growth and of conserving of axe carried out. ► ro,orients 2� ctfting herein is intended to reliev e the p p propeur all, p = yes required1. order° future urban land develea o Senfee5nonc�harges assessment to suc h urban ]!.and and reaiso.nable , to fundi the cost of providin piblicservices or the tet dents thereof. developments C. D F1P�'IT1014S the fol�c�'wing w ords and phra.s�, s For 'purposes bf this policy; t=1�.i:!> • $ respe� ,.ivel` ascribed to them by meaning r ` shall have the sec on. „ : ec rap hi,c area sh6wn on the, t' Lana that ga dart a) Chico, Area means of the Butte Cou'zit} Use clan Map P Chico Area Land We B'lemd1t. �I I 1�� '"O ficiril Chico Area GTeenlire Maps" m,eans the Chico 'I Arc, a, -Latid Usc; Plan and ,that large scale map certified by t}ie VVftinin ; Director and on .£ile in the Planning Department rice "located at I County Center tDrive Oravi'lle Ca:l;ifornia,. l 1:0 "Chico Greenline" means the boundary, line e:stabIished by thisl p61i.cy and delineated on the official Chico Area V re-enline Map which line separates urban/suburban Iaiad uses ;fr+,-�m agra culf-ural land uses:in the Chico Area;. "Butte l ,aunty Land Use Element" shali rt;fer to the Butte �a'unty 'Generz,l Plan. Land Use Element, which element eras adopted by the Butte County Board o.f'Supervisors on October 30, 1979, and as amended from time to time. thses mean the Primary Uses'" andthe e "Agricultural" land use designation and "Agricultural ,north In the Orchard and Flei�, '"land use Uses" set ' ,� `1d Craps" ].anc� use desiX;natiota e)f the Butte County Land Use 'Element as it existed on March 11 1982) and as amended from tirn,e to time. fl "Agricultural Residential" land usedesignation moan, the "'Agricultural, Residential"land use designation of the Butte County Land Use Element as it existed on March 1 I-082t j -1-.Aid as amended from time to time. !� g) "Urban,/Suburban: Land Ust:is" means all ].'awful usetii of :land (incltid:i7i, agricultural and ajricultural reo;idential land uses)h J "Agricultural Side of the Chico Area O eenl ine" shall ,refer to rands within the Chico, Area -;Ihich are located we;>tex°1y of the Chae:o Area Greenllne ;i) "Urba i Side of the Chico Area Gteenliik!"' 'shall refer to Of the dCH"7 ohAreain hGreFnl n Chico Aremt which are 10cated easterly i1» ESTCABLISHbfjiNT OF Ct'iTCO APEA GPIEENILIN The Gf:zteraFI Plan o!; the County of Butte is hereby amended as Q f03,1ows N a1 .Ch.erc is hereby established the Chaco '.Area Greenline ,l }, vjhich shabe locax:ed as shorn tine t;he OffJl t al Chico Area o+ The Off'zc,ial Chico Area 8r6enline Map is incori?orat,ed into tihis politL'y this reference b) ,ShWAd a dispute aviSe o'.r ambigUity appear as to the exact loe,,ation of t}ie Chicto A :a Greenline", the following rules shall 'be appl5.ed in det0-i'mi.n n€, the exact location of such Line u 00-epl,ine shall, lie icl�nl�xfied in t}se Chico Area Lana Use'P}an With a bold .<g o dash li'ne a,, shrn on the Chico Area 'Land Use PI an h1a}i`, The Grbenl,ne is i,pecifi large scale maps cert.i;-iecl by the Planning Direett>r sh'a1.T be consulted. in tlhe e'V0bt of a dispute, eenl tie is inid tatWd as apP�roXLiately. followin Y, s reel er l eheirosd ,right =,1511 #Y Creek or Cli,'anne l the ce�hto line of t'uth street, tIA1,6y, railroatd right-oi;�rRiay; creek or; channel lines s,al?, u°E constirtted to be the lorai;ion of thce G;reenl ine._ 1 3 Where the Greenline is indicated as- approximately following a• lot line :such -tat linea shall be construed to be the location of the Greenlii.e. 4) With respect to property thatis not subdivided, and Where the Chico Area Greenline bisects; lot or a parcel, the 7.0cafion of the Greenliline, unless the same is indicated by dimensions shown upon 'the official Chico Area Greenline Map, sha71 be determined by the use' the scale appearing on the Official Chico Area Greenline Map. c) The Chico Area Greenline shall constitute the boundary between the "Urban. Sidke of the Chico Area Greenline" and A "Agricultural l 'Side oft.he Chico Area Greenli.ne". d) Agricultural ;Residential land uses may occur on the Agricultural Side of 1.he Chico Area Greenline only within those areas designated for Agricultural use on .Residential . the Official Chico'Area Greenline Map., e) ;ixcept as provided for in subsection (d)y o' this section, all land use on the Agricilltural Side of the Chico Area Greenline shall consist solely of Agricultural land uses as provided by the Orchard and Field Crop designation. f) Land uses` on the Urban Side of the Chico Area Greenline shall be, guided by the policies of the Land Use Element and the -able land use designation as contained in pemt i the Lpli .urban E. ESTABLtTSINENT! of CHICO AREAL LAND USE POLICIES` In ordor to minimize or. eliminate the adverso effects which premature and inappropr$ate conversion to urban/suburban larid - uses ate likely to- 'cause to -the agricultural lands in the-.ChYco Area o, Butte County, the following policies are hereby adopted as part of the Sand Use Element of the Butte County General, Plan;, itppl cable to the Chico Area of Butte Couri't l) It shall be the policy .of Butte County to conserve and protoctol g Use thelands in the Chaco ,, Area that aresituatedan the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Creenline - 2) It shall be the Porowthothattte County to accommodate rutuxie urban /suburban rban the Chico Area u of Butte County on lands Situated in the Urban' Side of the Chico Area Greenline, R�S�RVEiM , G. 20kk REAR ATIONS; a) In order to carry out the purposes this policy, properties .located on the Agricultural Side of the Ch" 1l Area Greehlxne Shall sLhbs�: uentl be �oried or re 4-' y t zoned in p_ dcco�rdance with, this of "" - as folXo�vs . ' l) Ail areas whii:h a;re zc,ned A- A-10 at► the effecti ve . - p .. y date o:f this olildy ire deemed cons cfei;,t with this olio Y' 2) All areas wh1c�h are shown :At Agricultural ttesl I C10 tit i al o1i the Chit_ -o Area Greenline Map shall hereafter be 'rdidned 15 Pw to a consistent zone or a condit.ionajgy consistent �'onel, es the samz were listed as of March 1, 1h3Z., in the Ag�ieultut•aI Residential I.ancl Use Design o f theButte County General Plan. Rezoning shall be accomplished by the Butte County Board of Supervisors in the manner Prescribed by law- � 3) After the effective date of this polio., except as spec - fied inthis subsection Side oaf the Chico Area Gre�nlinepshalltbeorezonedg�to�ant -Z A-5, or-A-10 zonine district calssif,icat cin. 4) All lands located on the Agricultural Side of the Chico Area Greenline that are not arfected,by the above hereafter be zoned or rezoned, consistent with thisapalicy1 Such zoning or rezoning shall be done by the Butte Cou�ttY Board of Supervisors Lhi•otrdh the e.tercise of its discretion and in P the, mann r prescribe by b)'All references to A-Z, A-5, A-101 A-20, .4-40, and A-160 zoning districts, as well as references to the consistent and Conditionally consistent designations applicable to the Agricultural Residential Land Use Designation shall be dee;r,e:d to mean those same zoning district designations and terms -s P e defined in Chapter 24 of th.. Butte County Code as the sire read on March 1 1982 and as amended fi•on rine to time'. c) An existin, legal lot of record located on the A;ri cultural Side or the Chico Area Greenlinc ulixch, as a result of the adoption of this polic%, does not conform with the min- imum sire required by the zoning district designatiion a.ssz�Red by this policy shall be a nonconforming lot and shall be �_ �• _ _ Brief-t.s and the restric�.ions of r►onconforr�ing entitled to the b lots 'as estabji.ahed by law. d) Nothing, contained in this policy shall be deened to prohibit the application of` the aoricu`ltural nuisance ordinance segregaCaantardii�ancec 5ectb22a-23 S4o the agricultural 2:4 of the Butte County and 24 55 of Chapter t, Code) , as the Same Iii a�' now ex1stt or hereafter be amei d_-d, 1H. TONING CONSISTENCY_ Ah'b. T,1 1' G r nations 1. The Chica Area Land Use `Flan establishes land tise des. g Whi-ch depict delitable future land useat p terns State !Eiw re,guires consistency between general plan 'policies and toning, In. order to encourage an orderly transition of shall un from] the existing to 1 t n, the Count � Land use the desired utter cierta,ke to rezone this ands cansr.sl,entlj with the Chico Area, Lwhd Use PjAn, Zoning in these ar;�a' shall be upgraded through time With a co.mmenJurat6,ShOwing of need;:,; adequate services, drainage, qt;c. as provze.ed for in the `Butte County l,arid `tysr� E.lemen'I: i Zonix g in these areas to less than the fi i.-Cit im ptoyided flcir in thL. -p.1 resignations .shall be ,� . ' consde;�ecl cr�n;sistent kith .the Butte County's General. Plait , b} virtue of policies elite cted at Orderly Development (page 50 and Res.Yd(;ntial Development ) Cpages 35 34) 'raoraty shall be given to those area; with infrastructure capacity+ 1-6 $ S AMENDMENT AND R!'EVIEi1F The above Gre:enlIne policy may be amended as foll.aras 1) By a maj-ority vote of the Butte County Board of Super visors provided, however, that if any such amendment involves a ch,Inge in the location of the Chico Area Greenline, that the Board of SupeTvisort shad approve such amendment only after the adoption of written findings of fact:, supported by substantial evidence in the public record, show,iizg. a) That the public benefits of converting the agricultural land to urban hand substantially outweigh the public benefits of continued agricultural. production; and b) There are no other urban or suburban lands reasonably available and suitable for the proposed development. 2) The Greenline ins established for the period covered by the GetUeTal xylan, 20 years. To insure that the sand use. needs of the:'Chico Area are being met, the location of the Greenline shall be reviewed and evaluated every five (S) years. par this purpos=e the Board of Supervisor;; commits itself to initiate. such a review at the time interval specified above. Any changes or amendments shall be made only upon the frr,dings specified in subsection 1 above. Nothing in this policy shall prevent &n individual. at any time from petitioning the Board of Siapervi.sors for a general. plan amendment including a change in the location of the Greenline in accord'with the applicable laws andpolicies of the County of Butte and State` of Californiai .1) .Study Area No. 1 The area genu^ally known as t}.e hell-T�uIr� area located in northwest Chico (boopai3 d on the viast by' the Southern Pacific Railroad: Tracks, on the by tas't A o-noo and Henslun, A -,c ic, on the, east by Alamo, Avenue. and on tnc north by bell Road and Mju=: is desio �n.ltetl as a "Study ' Area 1 , This cksignotp'oni shall t - i n t" tied as ah5tusho the: • �. Ilio � " � ►�+� � ' shown o n Chico Area }:,and Use P16,11 Ma This a .eta c;c ,Arta 'No , 7. shall be sUbl ect to the special: poli (:.t os n� this section; . • i a The Board, of. Sof e=rVlsors, by.i i►ii � i 4i t.,Ia'jo�-It),' Tote f may rtiv,ise thr location ©f the Chico A-e,!o Gt�venl .nc 50 as to dace ;the Study Area No 1 oii .t ho Urbato Sire oT ai. Chico Area Gre►wn.t not I� 16,5-& � X , T.�}4"w w a , � u` e r r G���l j l�W ` � `*�, J psi ��y� "• „� ` �-A Y •• •r �• .. �, '- torr fir S A � F � ���� • •✓•jib • •f.. ^^^ • `c �: �� •PEE ,.r � 4 d r r � _ p y. I It General Pla n Amendment to Cbtnrri• Pxbni Industrial FILET No.,! -9 MAF AMENOINC CHICO AREA LAND USE F'I_AN ResbiUfl ri. Dat su TE COUNTY PLANNdNG COMMISMON BUTTE COUNTY 8011'Rb OF SilpER'VIt%,QNlS 4.5��- y9.� , �• �'i_ b, low =I min M a BUTTE COUNTY PAGE 4 s DATE PRINTED 04/251/85 POPULATION ES71MATES, FOR JAN 1 FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES IN CALIFORNIA ; CCUSUS 15)80 1981 1982 1983 1964 1985 (TOTALS MAY NOT EQUAL SUN DUE TO INOEPENDENT"ROUNDING.)' �tiGGS 1,413 1,390 1,,350 1,,<420 1;43(3 1,460 -.•.---------. -------------------- -....... ---=-------------�-__�,�.»•.-r-__---- rliI'CO 26,716 27,600 28,150 28,`550 29,650 31,150 ------------ •___.. ------- ------------------------•----,------------------------------ GRLDLEY 1,982 3,980 4,080 4,.090 4,210 4,28,0 ORN ILLS0,683 9,100 9,350 9,825 9,675 9,975 PARADISE ._ -- - -- -22,571• -22;700 23,200 23y650 24,000 -24,200' •• .•.. iN14NM#MMMMN#NNKNNKMMd/{IN#f•N1►NlRMNN111MffRiMKNKMM QMKNMKM.MN KMtMRpNNKIFiNfiNNil t+:#1�MNI/klf N,##hp#KKfIlM M- - - r .)Mf, I fiCORPORATC0 6Z, 365 64, 800 E6, 800 67y,500' 0"00 71,100 {!N!t#K{t+,,kMRK#KNMiYlf!l�14#N#NKM##KMM�16/fff#1MNKNiyl�i►#i#il/F#NKK1.IFpKN#MMNO`#�f1 A/•{L`O►tlb�it#KMIFM###KtN.M _ UNINCORPORATED 80,;486 82,000'. 6ti oo 86,500 88,000' 89,900 IIL NN1F4##R4IB NNNK'M/)k 0i100444**4;4oo#0o***4N#AI#NM#Yit�.Ni##NY1F#N 0440*MNNa.*' WOWN.i1MN#NN�►k,►MNNIF.Nift#4.M.i -. "• #IiM##NNNIIMNNN{/1k�1sfNKN.k MNNr1!NKNMNMIf#11NN71NNNNM.tf,�F#N�i �I F:NwNNMMN#NNk#:•1!N'R'�fM.NfINM#1N U•YN##K1N 91#1111NN: d- TOTAL COUNTY" 143, !tido` 146, $00 15Dino! 154,606, 157, 200 16i, 00(P I •