Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
005-490-001
r 4,. ' � t •�i A � i �A 4 �° � e.� r .�/� t � y ��r i• " t t d J • I , • 1 3 � \ l nn t0 Lit •I t h .4a A � ai e �; � " yp°y• r 1 .tl.� � � • 4 1 • J S pRr3J �C �ITi�!rsvZARY' S sJ—:71—:;'`I' $gill IYle No. Lag No. William Baker, et al A&Q Engineering aggiEcantrepresentative Mark Risser 1280 E. 9th St., Suite C 1350 mast Lassen Avenue ADDRESS: Suite 1 Chico, CA Chea CA 95926 PHONE: 89 6-3132 S ame property owner ADDRESS: _ 3Ec zscx���TOiS = USE PERMIT - to a11Ow the-construction of 6 coLi ex structures on the northeasterly side of Elm St- , across A—R located - on property zoned _ from its intersection with 5-4 9 -16 32 tgwnt area; Chico ____ - - 22nd St..., Chapin: �-c -- rn identified as AP r _-_: GENERAL PLAN-DESICNATI='Y PAID: $ 19 5 5 0 ; RECEIPT NUMBER: 10 3 9 6 DATE 10 — � 8 "—�� PRE APP FEL APPLICATION ACCEPTED; PAID: $257_? RECEIPT NUMBFR: P53 FITtAL-APP. r REZOYNG PETITION SIGNATURES CHECKED PERCENTAGE: MAILING LIST PREPARED MAIL-OUT, NOTICES WRZTIEN New i ' O - 8' Public:N_?_57?j NUMBER: _37 -- NOTICES MAILED LF,--%l DESCRIPTION PREPARED —L USTEtt PLTCATIOH NOTICE WRIi DISPLAY AD PREPARED _ fj NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION 0 C P G B R DATE OF PUBL+iATioN: INITIAL STUDY PREPARED Categorical Exemption FILLED' ENVIROtaSENT.�L DEIERMZI`'ATION: __ _ g Negative Declaration FILED: Mitigated Negative Declaration FILED: Environmental Tmpact P.eport CERTIFIED: i Other: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBERS APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE-NOTIFICATION OF ENVIkONri2iT:1I D INATION to: j .+u / PLANNLIG COMMISSION HFARLAIr.(s) 1 At Ile BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'- F.E.4RING(s ) ADOPTED: F�ESOLUTION NUnER (GPAs) AL-3rTED: ORDINANCE NUMBER Or DEPEPENATIuN (Appendix H) FILED NOTICE 491 Q.9-279)`Public hearing -� A & Q Engineering on behalf of William Baker, et al. appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a use permit to. allow the construction of silt duplex, structures on property zoned A -R (agricultural -residential) `(proposed negative declaration with mitigation measures regarding environmental impact) , property located oar the northeasterly side of Elm Street, ,across from its intersection with 22nd Street, Chapmantown, identified as AP 005-49-001, 032, Chico: (,2512) (**00) MOTION: A. FIND THAT AN INITIAL STUDY WAS GOMP'LETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA AND WAS CONSIDERED IN MAKING THIS DECISION; AND B. FIND THAT THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PROPERTY WILL IMPAIR THE INTEGRITY AND CHARACTER OF THE ZONE IN WHICH THE LAND LIES AND THAT THE USE WILL BE UNREASONABLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH, OR INJURIOUS TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR DETRIMENTAL TO THE HEALTH AND GENERAL WELFARE FOR THE PERSONS RESIDING OR WORKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR TO THE GENERAL HEALTH, WELFARE, AND SAFETY OF THE COUNTY; AND C. DENY THE REQUEST? FOR A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW SIX DUPLEX STRUCTURES (TWELVE DWELLING UNITS) ON AP 005-49-0- ool ANIS 032 (WILLIAM BARER, ET. AL) M S VOTE: 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 Y (Unanimously Carried) i t4qTTE COCiri7TY BOARD or;SUPE_, VICSOAS VITNUTES Jt*, 4 . 2D, L 9o9 a d, William Baker 'et al - proposed 'Negative Declaration regarding environmen al impact and U ,b Permit t6-6-JJow-e- construction YE e (onstruction of six duplex structures, on property zoned A-R (Agricultural Residential located on the northeasterly side 'of Elm Street, across from its intersection with 22nd street, Chapmantown, identifiedasAP 005-49-001, and 032, Chico. The Commission waived the reading of the Staff Findings;. Stiff noted,a letter from Larry Royal in opposition to this pr J ect . The hearing was opened to the publi-. Mark Risso,, A & Q Engineering, 'objected tothe wording of Condition 7. Commissioner Lynch suggested the condition read "Meet the requirements of the City of, Chico with respect to,,prezoning, sewer connection and annexation." Chairman Lambert tiaagain asked why the Commission is hearing this applicant will have to annex to the City. Mr. Risso said this went to the City for prezone and has never gone to the City Council for adoption. He said this development would help low income housing. He said there is ample parking available. He said: they are providing for road and drainage improvements. Commissioner Lynch asked if the property will be split? Mr. Risso said they would have to come back to the County for a split Larry Royal, He al, Chico Fun World, said he sent the commission a Larr discussed the problems in the neighborhood with Puri World. He said the complaints regarding Fun World come from this area. He said the water slide is near the proposed development. He said the water slide is 1/2 the income for the park and it generates a lot of noise. He was against this permit Commissioner Lynch asked if this is approved does it go to the Board of Supervisors? Staff said only on appeal. He asked if the City 'has to take an action before, this can 'develop if approved? Staff said if the project is, approved it will have to go on City sewer Staff said it would be inappropriate to give approval to this project without a verdict froth the City. This would put the applicant in the position of having approval from one agency arid an unknown factor with another agency ii aT��x,NSnx.c�NIiSS, .� x ` 5 Diane Lusk asked if there woul.d be 'a fence. She was concerned with traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Risso said the units will be rentals. He said the water slide was obvious to future renters. He felt the developer should be allowed to develop the lot. lie said'it complies with the General Plan and,zoning oning of the area. He said there. will be The hearing was closed, Chairman Lambert said there are many problemsin this area. She said there is a drainage problem in the area. She said the density proposed was too great for the area. She did not think it was appropriate to approve this and the; action should be before the City. Commissioner Forbes said the General Plan in the area is Medium Density Residential. He said the parcel_ is in the County and rms to the General. Plan. He said the Commission shoulda ct, on the request. He said it would be difficult to find grounds to ob ect' to the project. Commissioner Ostrowski questioned the nature of the adjacent neighborhood. Chairman Lambert said it was single-family in nature. Commissioner Lynch asked without this permit o� rezoning, how p much development could take lace on the two lots, Staff said 2 single family houses could be built, but they would have to connect to the sewer; Commissioner, Ostrowski was absent at this time It Was Matson for vapproed by valCas,foll„oission wsbForbes, seconded by Commissioner A. Find that an initial study was completed in compliance with CEQA and that the study and comments received thereof: identified no potentially Sign"Li'llcant environmental effects which the project may have; and B, Find that the environmental documents togethercrit-h any comments received during the public review process ha�r;� been reviewed and consieOred and adopt a' legative Declaration; and BU'"I' 'F CC CO, P:S$ O1T , Tt11V.ES M,ay . �:'�. CN�►�IK�,IIh11.N.�,wMvo:aa.y . `\car C. Find that the proposed use of the property 7 the integrity and character of thr Y w�.l- not impair lies and that the use will not be u,a one the .land With, or injurious to'surroundin Y incompatible' to the health and general welfarle'properties or detrimental working in the neighborhood or°f the persons residing or welfare, and safety of the Count b to the general hes ,Zi County because the proposal is in area; and g development in the D. ApproVe the Use Permit . st,� ae;� (12lal subject to t he follow -49-0-001 and 03"William Baker,stdwelling units) on AP 005 to duplex ing conditions,: 1• Construct vertical curb section to RS -2-A Standards, s dewa],k, and l/? road Street frontage. Submits plans12to lane a.lon Department of Public Works for checki Butteg Elm County 2. Provide apermanent -solution icor ng and a,ppr�val_ storm drainage, 3. Connect new construction to sewer. public water and public q• Pump and fill the. ex:stincg septic tank. 5. Under permit destroy a the p Procedu; e, y nd abandoned wells on property. 6• Prior to issuing of building from the Cit, of 9 permits Provide .letter and able to ty Of Chico stating that tl-te the project to Cit Y are willing 7• Meet the requirementsY sewers. M t exon nof the City of Chico with respect g connection and annexatiolz sewer 8. Meet the requirements of Department. the Butte County Fire 9• Construct an a ft, sound wall on the easterlsolid boar' d fence or masonry Y prol,erty lines, � 10. Plant and maintain in a living condition landscapi.ri as a sound attenuation device along the easterly g y property 1:1. Applicant must .and local also cam State P•l y with all other a statutes., ordinances pplicable and regulations. AYES: Commissioners Forbes and Matson NOES: Commissioner Lynch and Chairman Lambert �3CTD COUNT Y NG C(J ABSENT: Commissioner Ostrowski ABSTAINED: No one A 2-2 vote is deemed a denial. Chairman Lambert said Commissioner Ostrowski would not be back until' after lunch: Commissioner Forbes said that Commissioner Ostrowski has heard all of the discussion. Staff 'asked the Commission to bring this back after lunch for a full vete from the commission. Commissioner Lynch said it would be fair to bring this back after Lunch for a full vote, a g _ p. final vote: This hearing was continued to �:00 m. for the William, Baker use Permit continued from earlier in the meeting for the final vote Staff said the hearing was continued cicsed to allow for a full Commission to vote on the matter. Staff informed Commissioner Ostrowski that the previous vote was 2-2. It eras moved by Commissioner Lyiach, seconded by Commissioner Forbes, and carried to vacate the previous motion and start all over as follows; AYES: Commissioners Lynch, Forbes, Matson, and Chairman Lambert NOES: No one ASSENT: leo one ABSTAINED: Commissioner Ostrowski It was .moved by Commissioner Forbes, seconded by Commissioner Matson for approval as follows A. ]Find that an initial study was completed in compliance with ' CEQA and that the study and comments received thereor* identified no,potentia,lly significant environmental effects which the project may have; and B. Find that the environmental documents together with any comments received during the public review process have been reviewed and considered and adopt a Negative Declaration; and �a CCiL�TT� "� r � � i C. Find that the proposed use of the property will not impair the integriti, and character of the zone in`which the land Lies and that the use will .not be unreasonaoly incompatible with, or injurious to surrounding properties; or`detrimental to the health and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood or to the welfare, and safety of the County because the1'nGeneralaPlan.. y � quest' is designation is Medium )';?ensu Residential and the re in conformance with the General, Plan' and there are Single - multi -family residences within the are,;i; and Tamily and D Approve the Use Permit to allow 6 duplex. st:ru:tures (12 dwelling units,) on.'AP 005-49-0-001, and 032 (Wi1'l,.iam Baker et al) subject to the following conditions; 1• Construct vertical curb, gutter, sidewalk, and 1/2 road section to RS -2-A standard,plus 12' land aI,ong Elm Street frontage. Submit: plans to Butte County p Works for checking Department of Public W n g and a pp-rc>>val..' 2. Provide aanent erm solution far storm drainage p 3» se Pict neer construction to public water- and pLblic s 4. Pum and fit Pump 1 the g septic tank. , ., 51 Under permit procedure, destroy any abandoned wells on the property. 6. Prior to issuing of building permits provide letter, from the City of Chico Stating that they arewilling and able to connect the project to City sewers 7. Meet the requirements of the City of Chaco with respect 'to prezoning, sewer connection and annexation. 8„ Meet the requirements of the Butte Department. County Fire 9. Construct an 8 ft. high solid board fence or masonry sound wall on the easterly property lines. 10,. Plant and maintain in a living condition l.andscapin,g as lines. . y�.ce -along the easterly Property a sound attenuation de vi Cotyn 'LAWING,CC1,1v�MxB "C V r„8'."� +Ia llr 1, t. ll. Applicant must al -o comply with all other applicable State and local statutes, ordinances, anu regulations. Chairman Lambert said this proposal was not appropriate at this time and she said she would have difficulty making the finding that this development is compatible after the testimony received and with Fun World and residential, plus the. concerns of drainage, sewer, .circulation, traffic,,etc, There is a Sp ecific Plan`,that has not been completed with a drainage ;study and there is no money to do J.t. She cited the fact that this will be governed by the City and has to be annexed tohookup to sewers to develop. She was against the project. - Commissioner Porbes said, that the property currently lies with:i,n, the jurisdict4on of the County and, therefore, it is the County's responsibility to act, The General Plan says the request is in conformity. He said he wished the Chapman/Mulberry study was completed and adopted, but it is not and it is unfair to hold the Property owner up Commissioner Lynch said the prr,perty owner does have a, use of the property as single' -family residences and this is what is predominant in the neighborhood Commissioner Ustrowski said that one of the conditions was to make sure the drainage probler. -as resolved. Chairman Lambert did not see how this could occur When there is no drainage study, no drainage plan, and there is no funding for such a study or plan. AYES Commissioners Forbes and Matson NOES: Commissioners Lynch and Ostrowski, and Chairman Lambert. ABSENT; No one ABSTAINED: No one The application was denied, BIS; ATE C(3i` N11Y PLANNING . t l�1�iM SS x0 I i41T ` Y FILE NO.: AP 005-•49-0-001., 032 BUTTE 'COUNTY ;'" STAFF FTI�iDI'NG! ANNING COMMISS ON - April 26, 1.988 APPLICANT OWNER William Baker et al Same REQUEST: Use permit to allow theconstruction of 6 duplox structures. AP NC.: 5-49-li 32 SIZE: LOCATION 2.13 acres 01, the northeasterly side of Elm Street, across intersectionwith from its 22n+�' street, Chapmantown,'Chico. EXISTIN G ZOI�]'ING: A-B ZONING HISTORY: Zoned A-2 Aug 29 1955 • zoned A-R Dec. ' ' 1-983 SURROUNDI3:{ �I ZONING.,l3 0©dd 2'383 383 SURROUNDING; LAND A-R and City. of Chico USE: Generally sin le g residential f amily with commercial uses- with ° small famil and multi_ y development throughout. scattered Easterl World, and outdoor �' is Fun GENERAL PLAN facility,recreational and industrial sues. DESIGNATION: APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Medium Density Residential. ButtZ4-87. e County ar�d Code Section;; 24-47 COMMENTS RECEIVED: l ■1NAARiPN '-- . BUTTE COUNTY P% ir� ,STAFF FTN"JTNGSL NG,-C©MMTSSTON' April 26, ,1989 The Butte County Department of Dn.tiiirnnmertal Health beparttt�ent had °Works the conditions listed below, and the Butte. County bJ objects or comme is other t11an, CiMChico " re wire _. Thi: de�relopm nt of r annexation thE, propert Permitted `uSe s � to the subject- permit ) ayc,uld have to be of Chico to obtain Y would, or rezoni established se�n'er service 4 g' after annexation. by Pre --zoning, use be"California Water Service: ��� prove d with wate�' ervc�hisoinis ithin our service may be necessary.,, placement area and can re and/or and Clxico Unified School environmental docucnnO� s District: See attached to the Cha man/Mulberr letter p Y Association_:. See attachcd letter.. Butte Count Fire De �. rem d ---_-- art:ment : "Ahydrant The 'size and lc.a �� Ydrant far fire map attached with the co Pro4ectien will be tion have been noted on the map, to be on Elm Street comments indicated the (The' the type and install' &to the en rdsce to the location of the h project site hydrant ANALYST for the fire h and dotails S: hydrant). This project is a re place 6 Units) on p opexc quest to duplex structures s beet Y located on the site ; northeasterly side of X12 dwell d 2nd Strcated�sl the area of South Elm Street reo�,llt Y north of Chiro, acre in a housing density of Chico Fain World. The project which is well Y aPProximatel The 'project Will density allowed below the l3 dwelling 6 dwelling units designation. in the Medium Densit g unit per acre Per Y Per maximum General Plan 'While the project. meets the character of the u5ethe density requirements of uses are mostlysr will be that ofhe General Plan, Ingle-famiJ_y dwellings with . S throughout. The Multi -family Surrounding Specific plan indicate he draft ,policies multi -family uses should be maintained, 'the single-familf the Chapman/Mulbe,rry the pPl,cant Dup1ex developments such haracter of the area because of the clusteredln'd in well with single-family as that p b amil P., © °sed y prpovidepace a visualund each huildre �rigthe dwellings and the provis on of conventional sin le�nness that Development such as ion l g fam7, may far exceed that experiencedtries will widths that result .iri Y subdivision, Part culat in a et frontage. i•ngs bein Y substpndard lot build g very close to ow a stre -achr along 2 l J r BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS April 26, 1489 potential impacts identified in; the initial study included dose to the storm'drainage;system in the area, noise, sewage disposal,, and archaeological resources. A records check and sensitivity evaloation of the property was prepared by Chico State University and iao arc.haeolo xcal surveywas recommended Therefore, archaeological clu;,Arance 'is recommened. The remaining potential :impacts can be addressed through conditions to meet standard development standards adopted for the area. The condition recommended by the initial study regarding sewage disposal was to, require hookup; to City . sewer and meet the responded of reed to Chico. The applicant's engineer qu y p y g connect to Ci-cy of Chico sanitary sewer system and to meet the City requirements only as they pertain to payment of connection fees and installation of the sanitary sewer ' 'Thapplicant's inY engihas indicated that they wish too developthe County because of the time involved processing annexations and city, permits and because o£ more stringent req uireme,.:s for off-street improvements that would be imposed by the City. It 'should be noted that the County does not have the authority L.0 abrogate City requirements for hookup to City facilities. Comments received from the City of Chico (see above) indicate that full project approval will be required 3 . I' an action qui�.edy from the Citi of Chico be rendered y by annexation Cita and City commission sesiemita Accordingly, ed moot since ann y y p s will be required by the City. The Planning Commission may wish to require approval by the City of Chico priortoissuance of any building permits on the property. The applicant h� so requested'' that a solid board fence be allowed instead of - the .:ry.wall suggested in the initial study. A solid board ;fence with -Laadscaping would be adequate given the noise levels experienced in; the area according to sound survey analysis performed in August of .1988. generally addressed�,eby from the conditionsaz�ofu1approvalssand/tion are The comments res and/or City requirements for development in the area. it should be :,noted that many of the concerns expressed by the Association are regional in nature and can not reasonably be expected to be solved by any one applicant. For example, while the area has, circulation that meets ordinance and the policies of the Butte county General Plan, roads the requirements of the Subdivision �� ds i.n the area are generally substandard and can not handle substantial incrsases in traffic. These same istreets are generally publicly ma;,rtt/fined, but would require q reconstruction throughout the !,neighborhood ,in' order to bring: thom�up tocurrentstandards. Similarly, the entire area 3 BUTTE COUNTY PLAPMING COMMISSION STAFF FINDINGS April 26, 1989 needs a storm drainage system in order to support further development. Until such time as a drainage district is formed, only temporary sol.ut: ons can take place. ' I t is possible that this project is premature and should be delaYed until such time as the Chapman,/Mulberry Specific Plan is completed, necessary assessment and improvement districts are formed and required facilities suchas storm drainage and streets are installed or improved. However, si=nce this project represents a' small percentage of the entire area, and wince temporary solutions are available, approval of this project would not represent a significant impact on the existing facilities. The environmental documents for this project have been completed and a Iregative Declaration is recommended. i EC0MM1MDATI0 ; A. Find that an initial study was completed in compliance with CEQA and that the study and cor,ments received thereon identifiednopotentially significant environmental. effects which the project may have; and B • Find that the envirormiental. documents together with any cotttments received during the public review process have been reviewed and considered and adopt a Negative Declaration„ and C. Find that the proposed use of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the zone in which the land lies and' that the use will. not be unreasonably incompatible with, or injurious to surrounding properties or detrimental to the health and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the: neighborhood or to the general health, welfare, and safety of the County because and D. Approve the Use Permit to allow 6 duplex structures (12 dwelling units) on AP 005-a49-0-001 and 032 (William Baker et til) subject II to the following conditions 1. Construct vertical curb, gutter., si 0ewal'k, and 1i2 road section to RS -2-A Standard, plus 121, latio alon'Department Elm Street frontage. Submit plans to Butte C+aunty of Public Works for checking and approval 2. Provide a permanent solution for storm d4rain6STe. 3. Connect new, conotruction to public water and public s -ewer. 4 Pump and till the ekistinq >septc table, 4 BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COM",gISSION STAFF FINDINGS - April 26, 1989 5. Under permit procedure destroy any abandoned wells on the property. 6 Prior to issuing of building the City of Chico stating thathEy1are willinand abler��rn connect: the project to City sewers g to i'. Meet the requirements of the city of Chico. 8 . Meet the requirements of the Butte County FareDepartment. Construct and 8 ft. high solid board fence wall on the easterly property litres. or masonry sound 10. Plaut and maintain in a living condition landscaping as a sound attenuation device along the easterly ` property lines. ll . Ane ' local s.., cant must also comply With all other applicable State al1c�'tatutes, ordinances, and regulations. DRH:1'r Attachments to the Commission and Cities Rnvironmen.tal documents Location. Exhibit Site Plan Chapman /Miulberry Association 'letter. 5 fob BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION JAN 18 1989 7 County Center Drive O ro vi l le , CA 95965-3397 bav►llgY C1if�ra6� (916),538-7601 To: Chapman -Mulberry Assoc. DATE: 1 RE: PROJECT REVIEW &' ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or, generated concerning the following project: William Baker, et al, AP45--49-1,32 USE PERMIT to allow the construction of 6 duplex structures on property zoned A -R (Agricultural -Residential), located on the northeasterl-y—aide of Elm Street., across from its intersection with 22nd Street Chanmantown, Chico We are making an assessment, of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an envire;inmental document, either a Negative Declaration, Negative Declaration with Mitigation Measures or an Environmental. Impact Report (EIR). Please provide any factual statements, ideas for :_nveslcigation,-or opinions you can offer' in your area of concern or, expertise that relate to either physical., social.,' or 'economic impacts that this project. may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the above -rioted date. Is no response isgenerated by this inquiry, -then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental impacts "which are potential from the project. We appreciate any assistance you can provide. Sincerely, s Craig a.nders Planning Technician Comments - Does your agency wish to receivea copy of t1 --i environmental document (initial study for Negative Declarat o (caith or without Mitigation Measures) or EIR for this project). S NO ..Y January 16,, 1989 27.14 Laurel St. Chico, CA 95928 Butte County Planning Commission 7 County Ctr. . 'Dr . oroville, CA 959;5-3397 Re: Project Review -& Environmental. Evaluation Dear Commissioners: Many of the residents of our neighborhood have expressed concerns regarding the proposed six duplex structures at the junction`of Elm and 22nd Streets by William Baker et al. Several years acro, we successfully petitioned you to rezone the Chapman --Mulberry areas from A-2 to AR classification. one of our ,principle -problems in this unincorporated area of ;hico is the relative lack of adequate vehicle access and capacity of county streets. For this and many other reasons, we were desirious of some method of control over the type and number of developments that Were to be allowed in this area" -"aside from single-family residential. In particular, many of us don't feel that our isolated neighborhood layout provides adequate street access to the houses now extant, much less to 1.2 new family units at the east end of 22nd St. This most direct thoroughfare to the main feeder (Fair St.) is very narrow, with little shoulder parking area --especially between -Laurel and Elm Streets, where our non-functional drainage ditch system parallels the south edge of the blacktop. Looking at Lne proposed plot plan, one can see that the driveway areas for the intended improvements are larger than the 'existing street access to the neighborhood. Unless this developer or Butte %ounty can provide better, or alternative access routes to th.s parcelL I would submit that the project would indeed tend to have a negative impart on the existing property owners/residents of the ;Mulberry. We have 'many .families with young children in this area, and many of these are forced to walk in the street due.+.o the absence of sidewalks,y as well as ride their'bikes in 'our cramped and little -policed, streets.'' We presently sufferfrom an overabundance of poorly and illegally driven vehicles,I many of which are not residents. Seeing,a Sheriff patrol car oftener than once a month is unusual in this area,. Further, it should be pointed out that nearby city areas between 20th St. `and 'our neighborhood are fast incurring a ver:y high dent;ty of multiple -unit rental developments, with p,assibly more to 1 c.olme Thus, far, no street i,mporcvements are evident to 'service these, though many are now occupied- contrary 'to what our ighborhood Specific Plan Committee determined to be appropriate ,i 1983. l APPLICATION FOR' USE PERMIT tl t':o. Ar�,n..rnQ C'catYltl'd, BUTTE CQUIVTY PLA 1VIV1 NG COMMISSION APPLICANT: Flood and follow instructions as set forth on attached sheet. roviJl®, �allrornEa Applicant's name William Baker, et al Phone No. 896-3132 Appllcant'smailing address 1350 East Lassen Ave., Suite 1, 'Chico; CA 95926 Appli'oant's interest In property (Owner, lessee, other) Owner" -- Owner's name and addresssame as above Contact person for(n ect ro if other than applicant) — p 1 .Mark E. Risso, A & Q Engineering 1280 E. 9th Street, Shite C, Chico, CA 95928 "— Assessor's parcel nunlber(s) 5-+9— 01 3`z_ Present zon', ;� A-R Loo?tion and alze of parcels) ELM St. between E, 22nd & E. '23rd . _ 2p arcels total IWIacres Street address Lln3 mowtl Directions for travel to property (rural and mountainous areas only). .J -� Description of proposed development and use 12 unit residenta.al in du ler. p buildings s ------------- Description of existing land use Vacant IT/one single family residence M Proposed scheduling/associated projects ``' ' — No associated projects --- Anlicip4od incremental development None. --- e.� — _yt Building construction (state dimensions, square footage and materials used) : L a. rExistfng buildings— 700 SE Wood frame building g - to be cx. removed Ott uildings b. Proposed buildings—.les, Hazardous materials to beused ,inflammar boles, e)tpiocives or strong chemicals) None -------------------- Oally hours 4 operation — ----dol$ ------._ . -- _ Number of employees None_--�- Nurnbea of off-street perking spaces pvovided.g_� 2 per unit ; --�------------ r includes _ garage, Cxistilip/propused`;sewage'disposal melhod:, Proposed Cit Of y Chico Sanitary Sew er Proximity of power and phone lines: aCljat�ert Disrancr hr taaturi,f wate, rmurse or slorin draln: _900_ feet Atilt �M crpatod nor and offsite drainage improvements, seepage trench Wath•r source:—'_ --------_ Prommily of water far fire ft htn� y p—w------ --_— tour ases (hydrants, ands etc.) ad g p_, ) acent -______---- Will Qxcavattan of 47rading be necessary, Cuble yards (est'ftnate): � ROadCJ'cic 40Lvim e �_ IL�1 i L19t and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, Including those required by city, rogiona,l, State' and Federal agencies: man iary Sewer agreement With City of Chico IF RESIDENTIAL, include the number of units; whether units are single or multi -story inheight, schedule of unit slzes, and typo of household size expected, 12, single story, 900 - 1100 sf,2 - 3 people per unit IF COMMERCIAL, Indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area; and loading facilities, N/A IF INDUSTRIAL, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading fa6IIJti!3s. IF 'INSTITUTIONAL, ndicateAthe major function, estimated employment per shift, estimated' occupancy, loading facilit)e%1, and community benefits to be derlVed from the project. N/A �d ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES* --� Identify potentially significant environmental impacts associated with the use permit, What project design features or special U. conditions of approval (mitigation measures) are proposed to alleviate potential environmental Impacts;' NeXt to industrial use, extensive landscaping proposed with separation between residential units and industrial uses. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING* Dnscribe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and ani- mals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects, Describe any existing structures on the site, .and the use of the structures. .JCL Drigcribo tiro surround, :properties, Including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspec's, Iodicnto the type Of Ir ,d use (resldential, commercial, etc.) intensity of land use (single-family, apartments, shops, depart- < anent stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc.). * Use separate sheet for longer responses.' p 9 p I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read and understand the instructions and that the foregoing statements are true, complete and co rect to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dale Applicant's signature Dale Property owner's signature _v� �%`•=-- lJiie Permit Numtier..�„.,� >- Ruqunsl: Use permit to allow _J Location and size of parcels) VEf11PY; Lai A, P. Numberts) /'Proect Depeription C11* j C Ownership Zoning and Requirements Proof of Agenc r (if needed) Location Description, 16 Copies of Plot Plan Lal U_ Date Race IvotIi fV � S Y `SV — Receipt Number �y U -Y2, C:) Application taken by �A�,��td.---, -- AWL INSTRUCTIONS TOUSE PERMIT APPLICANTS If applicant is not the owner, ,written authorization by the owner o. other proof, of agency must be submitted in ordor for the applicant to it.gally, sign the application. Application shall be considered void if not signed by the owner or legal agent. 2, All items on application shall be filled in as completely as possible. If art item is not appli- cable, please indicate by the term "NA". 3. It is important that the applicant supply an ac•�,uratc description of the location of the proposed project, including the following: n. Assessor's parcel number(s) (from the tax bills or Assessor's maps). b. Street addresses (if available). c. Distances and directions to named streets, bodit:s of water or railroads, t. Twenty Qopie8 c" a detailed plot plan of adequate scale to clearly show proposed build- i,ngs and improvements, folded to 81 x 11 inches, shall accompany and be made part .of the "Application for Use Permit". If the use permit is a proved, the plot plan becomes the ap- proved development plan for the property.The plot plan shall include the following information: u. A sca;,. drawing of the parcel(s) boundaries. b. Location and 'dimensions of till existing and proposed improvements on the property, including buildings, driveways, parking ureas, wells, septic tanks and leach fields. c. i.ocation and name of bordering streets, icccss roads, nearby crossroads, streams, bodies of water and railroads: d. ;North arrow and scaleof drawing. 5. The "Application for Ilse Permit" is subject to public hearings and approval by the Planning Commission'. ;Any special conditions of approval shall lie made a part of the approved "Use Permit" and sliall be binding on the applicant. The procedures for County action on Use per - 1161 applications arc stated in Chapter 24 of the Butte County Code. G. 'iThe Planning Commission, on the basis of the evidevice submitted at thepublic hearing,may grant u.,e permits when it finds that. the proposed uses of the property will not impair the integrity and character of the" zone in which the lane, lies and that the use would not be un_ raNsonbly incrtotpatiblr, with or injurious to surrounding properties nor detrimental to the hrnith and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood nor to the general haalth, sufety anti welfnre of the county. 7. In approving a use permit., the ,`Manning Commission may include such conditions as are Aerated reasonable and necessary under the circumstances to preserve the integrity and �,hitrovier of the zone and to secure the general purposes of the Butte County''Genernl Plait nod Chapter 24, of the Butte Comity Code; Such conditions may include, but are no limited to., time limitations, development plan approval, ' [tours of operation, noticing, dedication of right-of-wny, and street and drainage improvements; Conditions imposed upon issuance of a ase permit must Ito teasonablyrelated to the use for which the permit is req!,ested H. Application fees, as of /� el 7— � � (dare) are S 15 -W,4e- .4- /' Foes may he ptiid in,eash or by check made payable to "Treasurer cif ti%ic County' . 9, Before .submil'ting a use permit application, applicant is requested to discuss with staff all queslions about application requiremetits, County procedures, Luning provisions and possible conditions of approval. { Buffo Co. planning Cotrtim OCT 1988 Orovillad C:taldfarnlm Environmental Setting Lot has one single family residence (rented) InTith remainder vacant. Slope is to west. Soil is topsoil3-5 feet, then hardpan. historial, aspects associated with the site. Na lcnotin cul`uozral, Area consists of single family residences, small commerical businesses and a few multiple family developments. Easterly of the site lies Fun. World, a recreation business, and indusCrial sites, including the vacant Tenneco Almond Processing Plant. 3'he area is not considered good animal habitat. No known historical,, scenic, or cultural a4nDects are associated with 'the area. nwo AP#'S-46-6-10 C. Drew Ate#5-47-3-6 1035 Sheridan A17e. Chico 1. & E,' Boutwel �, CA 95926, 2250 Elm Streq.l:; Chico, CA 95928 W• & B. Bakes' 1363 Woodland'. AP#5-46-6-1,1 H• Avenue Chico, CA 95928 Aldred P.Q Bx. 8,83 An05-47-�3-12 Piazzl tai _ Chico, CA 95927 Living rust 242 Wa`t 12th Avenue AP,#5-49-4 Chico, CA 95926 N. Alexander '383 AP#5-46-6-19 ChiOco,Box 27 H. ,�rish 213 El Elm Street AP#5-471:3 w3- M . & N ' Chico, CA 95928 • t� VIne 2215 „Laurel St. AP#5-49-16 Chicon CA 95928 G. & L Richter P. '0. Box 4402 AP#5-46-6-.20 John AP#5-47_ Chico, �'3A 95927 Stone 2126 Elm 3-14 J. & Street ChicD, CA 95928 J'. Brooks 2261 Laurel St.. AF#5-4.9_.,24 Chico, CA 95928 C. Shine 236 Estates Drive6-21& ChicoP' AP#5--46- 22 & E• Martin AP#5-47-3--is CA 95928 2545 Road P3.1.1sbury Chico R• Williamson , CA 95926 : 2227 Laurel St Chico, CA 95928 AP#5-49-25 C. AP#5-4 _ 7-3-1 & 2 & L. Johnson 'ETAL 557 Rustic Lane w• Brooke 2207 A??#5-4 _6-7-1 Paradise CA 959 69. Laur6+E�AL 1 Street Chico, CA 05928 J'•L' Usk 7959 Citrus Acro , Chic,0 CA 95926 AP#5,49-32 W. & B. Baker 1363 Woodland AP#5-46-'7-2 Avenue Chico ► CA 95928 K. Rice 2153 AP#5-49-35 Elm St'. Chico, CA 95928 Chico Fun World 2275 Elm AP#5.,d -7-3-3 Street Chico CA 95928 A• & B,.' Cummings 2441 AP#5..467-3 & ;. Feather9 Tti95Llvd. Marysville, CA 959 01 K. & M. Ludwig P.0'. Box 462 AP#5-d6 --6-8 WU o dacre', CA' 94973 S. & D. Eandi 211.8 North AP#5-47-3-4 Avenue Chino C'A H. FIIan� EM' � AL: 2240; AP, 5-46�-•7. 7 � 'Robin ,95926 Elm Street Cbico, CA 95928 �=» E2'AL 214t Elm St. AP#5-46-�6-4 Chico, CA 95928 V. & S. Glover 3821 'Ho.i.iak>a AP05-47-,3-5 Car Y Lane Carmichael,, : hael, Ti. & N Schmidt 2244 AP#5-46-7 -�4 ., CA ,95608 Elm St, Chico, M. Uranados ETAL 2141 CA 95928 Elm St. Chi Coo CA 95926 A & Q ENGINEERING Civil Engineers 1280 E. 9015tr(rt �,.�;,,CAUFORN,k Grim, CA, 95925' '� 1989 893-0631r�!AY OF F,IJPeRVIw°ORC May 16, 1939 BuPib �. �1ann�n men 9 YYY� MAY 1,t)'1989 Clerk of the Board County of Butte 25 County Center Drive 25 Oroville, Ca95965 RE YJ ec, armt°16k Wil Baker, 'et '41 T-�(?W�! Dear Madam. Enclosed is check 4` '1507 for $75. Please begin the., process to appeal to the the Board of Supervisors denial of the subject ,their' use perm?.t by the Planning Commission at May 17, 14189 meeting. We feel that the denial was an irresponsible action by the Commission., depriving the applicant of his right to exercise the highest and best use of his land, all in conformance with the Butte County Zoning Crdinanoe and General Plan. SincerelC, Marl E. R aso MEF/pm Enclosure cc: Wil Baker n� c� n rr r� r� Y \ ,, Q� A4DN4IIVISTRA.TI COUNTY OF BUTTE 25 COUNTY CEPJTE�i DRIVE ° : o OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-9380 °° Tefephone: (916) 538-7631 �bUtl ted Fax! (916) 538-7120 MEM6i_RS OF THE BOARD WILLIAM H: RANDOLPH HASKEL A. MCINTURF CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE'OFFIrER - � JAnle ooLAru !<ARFIN VERCRUSE May 18, L989 RD MCLAUGHLIN LEN FULTON William Baker, et a1 1350 East Lassen Chico, CA 959 26 Avenue, Suit- 1 Re Use Permit, AP 5-49-1, 32 .Dear Mr. Baker; � The Clerk of 2U the Board to Supervisors set Public 1989 at. 1:1,:00 a.m. Commission's denial Consider your appeal hear�Zg for June COT duplex structuresf a Use Permit to ow of northeaster) allow the the'Planning on 'Property zoned canstructioh ��f y' side of Elm S*Lreet, Chic o, A -R located on the The meeting Wi -Lie �Uutte Goant 42 1 LANG O F t~1 A T U P, A L , -�+ �-� PLANNING DFPAFiTM5N7' 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLIS, CALIFORNIA 95955-3397 TELEPHONEk (910) 538-7801 May 12, 3.989 william Baker, et al 1350 East Lassen, Avenue, Suite 1 Chaco, CA 95926 Re: Use Permit, AP 5-49-1, 32. Dear Mr,, Baker At the regular meeting of the Butte County PlannLtl., Commission held May. 11, 1959, your request for Use Permit to allow the construction: of six duplex structures, on. property zoned A -R located on the northeasterly side of Elm Street, Chico, was denied. Should youl desire to appeal this decision you:must do so, in writing, with the appeal fee of $75.00 to the Clerk of the Board of. Supervisors, 25 County Center Drive, oro-ille, California, prior to the expiration of the 8 -day appeal period which i -m at 5:00 p.m., Friday, May 19 1989`. Should yoyz have any questions regarding this matter, please contact this office between 10:00 a.m. and 3:90 p.m. Sincerely, , i rcher Director of Planning BAK:lr I( AkC nr9,1►1}Yttt l".h SAY „ +'10 , California Chico World May 21 1989 "G" Rated tarp$/ Entertainment BUTTE COUNTY PLANNINGCOMMISSION B.A. KIRCHER, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE' OROVILLE,,'CA 95965-3397,, RE: AP# 005-49-001, 032 Chico Dear Planning Commissioner; should not.be allowedsix (5) duple,'to build, ;, ructures. question 1t is Chico Fun World's position that the pr_op,�r Mr. Baker has already been rejected this proposal; twicei%diebruary 18, 1988 and November 7, 1988) by 'e Planning Commission of the City of Chico. We still' ha'���; -•ame concerns as before with Mr. Baker's q rt for a use for construction on this property. request �"���. Our concern is ;-,1'v with the addition of thesu new homes located that close to ,.he waterslide area would be opening the park to p g ' further problems with- the neighborhood resa:dentc s. Approximately 51% of the income to Chico Fun World Inc. is generated by the waterslide. If Chico Fun World would-be restricted in'any way to operate the waterslide as a result of additional neighbor problems, Chico Puri World could suffer great economic damage. Chico Fun World is in 'Chapter 11 Reor anization as�a result of cost g overruns ofdtheng Construction and poor revenue. Wh burdenr add tothe amusement park? The investors in Chi~.:) Fun World have already lost over 1 million dollars. The only reason we continue P -- too rate is because the creditors would have no way of being paid if the park,stops operating. Many believe that Chico Fun World "y y l as 1.s needed in our communis. as, a recreational facility a,� well •ring the summer season. employingwell. over 50 students du We will ask the commission to consider what :took place with The incam atible uses. The Silver Dolar Fargo�x nds Graduatepin Chicobecause of the neighborhood problems ruble ms brought on s�,and b continued industrial and commercial growth surrounding this area (Food 4 Lessi Home Club, The Sierra Brewery, Cost Less Foods,' The Work Training,Center, and tore) is increasing rapidly. Many of the houses were constructed years ago and are in great need of repair. Because manor are rentals property owners do not keep the, houses in good repair. The streets are narrow and Lack propel` drainage. Chico Fun World had to apond' $30,000 ;tcs bring water to the park because water lines in the area were to capacity. 2275 rim Street 5hcn Dollar Fairground9 Chlco. CA 9592& i r We believe the commission should rethink what is best for this area. Is the fair grounds going to go away'? Is Chico Fun World going to go away? is the Work Training Center and c! -her businesses going to go away? Is the commercial and industrial on 20th Street and Fair Street going to go away. Whv increase'remidential con- struction in this small island surrounded by commercial and in- dustrial property? n-dustrial'property? We believe it would be a great injustice to Mr. Barer if he invested large sums of money building this residential project and find out in the years to come that the area has become mostly all industrial or Commercial. Unless a complete study as to the proper long term use of this area is done, our recommendation is that no change is better than the wrong change. Please do not allow increased residential building on this until a study is completed on the llar Fair Grounds► 20th entire area located between the Silver Do Street, Fair Street, and M-1 Zoned property on the east. Sincerely, 1 ' r rry R 1 General Manager Chico Fun World, Inc. Enclosure. DLL e r.a ry `;+ b � t��, xi � ro� FF ftS'i��k',`t I'"j"'4 39',� ✓$tv+��t' ��x' '1;�'�,g 4' ,�j�!., ,vf v i3'"" �asA' � �''�i iW. �{yce fh 1Y G,a ,y � k'�£,?d� { ;.r^ , ."'? Y $fi ��'..��Mr,Al �'y �� 3a •.v a, .. sx s t, xr t rK a �, +��a1+ ;& +R'`�� s��ii� t�+ 1 y ,,rro--400so' !+SSESS9rty PARCEL NUMBER r STREET ADDRESS R"•' 1 I tjYyr ZONING a.. CGi1NTY ZONING INx.t :4Wr� CITY OF CHICO { �.T+' t� '� }�' > �r � � � x � jtt '�yf7t � {� a,AI'tX�•�i:.� { =Mama g 19 /� �y !�I LUul w ' LtJ w w Uj co N E. 22ND STREET Cr Cr w M - UBJE'7 PEk'TIES� a `�4 y ar SpIRplfUhlk�ibF�O �v ata%� 1rYt{�vk �tlt` UJ 'y a�}�cr �r`{t t1,Sx r�xr NT APT �« -�• STREG 1 J . E. 23RD rrou:"kosed Prezone •� � �( a k dLi +� 5zx �t n nr ) e sk,,a�1.arai,v.�r�x'•F6,rz:�fwL`�',�,.,*:xo,t6i)sY�rur.Sa.Y.assCssA�w.:��,�.wa`�`t�S�rr`.d�, +�«ut;;thr�r"'d' Request to prezone 2.1 acres from County A—R.Agricultural Residential to City PD/R-1' Bum Co.a. i'faF�rn Planned'Development/Single Family Residential OAY 4. 1989 iQ.� '11r• '"�tt�r�rn1 CITY OF C141CO PLANNING OFFICE �.. Plat To Accompany DRAWN BY.-_I3ti._ ._._ �. CFtCCKt:D B1t�.. PREZON #116 (Baker) — REVISED DATE03 'ALC 1"= 2QQn APPROVED BY ru£rr d -lilac on. IN d won J ga coun LAND Of NATURAL WEALTH AND BFAUiI PLANNING DEPAI`AToM�NpRNIA 95965-3397 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE ^ QRQVILLE, TELEPHONE; (916) 535-7001 April 25,, 1989 William Baker, et al 1350 East Lassen Avenue, suite 1 Chico, CA. 9592!3 - Re: Use Permit, AP 5-49-1, 32 Deal: Mr. Baker: Enclosed is a copy of. the Staff Findings concerning your PP Permit to allow the construction of 6' application for a Use duplex Structures on property zoned A -R located on the northeasterly side �f Flm-Street, Ghico. has been set for May 11, 1989 at 10:30 a.m. A public hearing This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Room, 25 County Center Drive, Oroville, California. licant or their The planning Conr> nsativerbe�present atmmends athehhearing to respond to authorized represno ne any quo'ttions the Commission may have. In the event that office will represent the applicant, please contact the Planning prior to the scheduled public hearing.: Should you have any Vestions regarding this matter, please contact this office between10:00'a.m. and 3:00 p•m'- Sincerely, B A. Kircher Director of Planning tFrfDavid R. 73ironi us Associate Planner DRH:lr Enc. cc: A & Q Engineering c�ayy'�EQ 1 44 llp ( 1 v \ r / y k �:. .:,ter, hasp i•=!< 3. ((++�� ^ /tea � ,.'.� r • :n ;uon r,tlQ �' �' ?' c,`.—�• arcs : rl j,rer orI¢Qa1147VIA Aj a � ? 3 + a�N ! u.uwp s_.rtaL,n ?fNu•� ... r � ,�, �+�v >' •, P^ntl a�n/g ! epS` tl B Y;ue wwei r +•+ s.{J ry'SS1p �, *J 4o m r n ' b I. ! oy 'drA �I��� .. �+0 rr) N+< Q` 0q w Ufa 13 CiJ. 'AM1e11aucZ s QfC' J�o�6 pall r � M.r+9. G N •��c pra � ss aoN •� e n 3u �• a pr, l :matsarossaud anuany a p S � d z 3 �pl"��Y_9Wp► `dic a' pct` t Nf ell '.au ui urns +r.u.+ Iaayal w,ap phµ udwnp,''NSQ� `�Ap`�Py • � � . --- r �.'L ill w � { _�°a. ��/' P e� PACfFY 6 1 r l�jr. n L 4� �"� P��s / S� 1\Gn ✓ oiN �ERRAILP AQ, •4 1...5' mh .: E � � >n . 4 see 1 Qsr. ��y you '�„ �� j�/� , u�,..... ,.�„� .,•.. 4V 1 .� A�.Jy� 1 ✓amu kf J �.+ i ` 'I/J P ^� iJ C.�fP.t �• ♦ Cbal Ciule , (arnig tq+ari. BAN 11) 1989 dr Califo mia AdXninistrutive Office i1G3 BAST SEVENTH STREET a OF 'ZtiZE AS SUPERINTENDENT cirri CGI Sol-3000 OFFICE ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES j (916) 891-31.40 January 10, 198 Sanders, planning Technician 14r. Craig ing Department Butte County Plann 7 County Centex Drive proville, CA toCA95965 wpAojECT Re: Chico Unified School District resp on ENVI�gpNMENTAL 'EVALUA.TION" fox the' .William REVT.EW Application Baker Use. permit Dear Mr. Sanders: 1989 regarding our letter_ dated 0anuary 4► P' #5.49--1, 32) in response toy App (A. the William Baker Use Permit App lex structures on Prop - across northeasterl,\7 side of a m Street►Chico, d Construction of sil duplex to allow the 00 theCha mantown, erty locate the development will impact the from its intersection ith 22nd 4;treet, p the District finds that g this schools serving area. er tiresidential unit:. t e number of students p develop- Based on the a ist , it is Projected that this 'Each a n the scY�aol district, 5 school ache children. i oximately capacity . meat �1il house app " school (s) n the emenitary school' in the ibis �ewcelementaryd to cap' student. - Pend! completion of a Fending the Comp increased numbers of elementary, greater Chico area, via relocatab7.e classrooms w 4 11 continue to be acc:cammodated laced on existing Trie junior high school serving that have been �+nd wiluseSntinue to be p acity Over elementary sWhool'camp h „chool) r is near Cap the area (Chs' -cc junior High explored alter ' ur.:ior high 5::1001- level will, continue to crowding at the ! t,, ' ll has already the COM bae Distric ending increase, The senior high. school native houenn+ options fo�c tho�s+e students � ry ' union high scA�ool a ilew 7 can accommodate Piet. of Chico Senior High School) servir►h additionalstixdent.s 1 SH/mkl Rum BUTTE COUNr.Y PLANNING C10MMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice x.Is hereby given by the Butte County, Planning Commission that public hearings will be held on Thursday, May 11, 1989, in the Butte County Board of Supervisors' Room, County Administr.•ation. Center, 125 County' renter Drive, Oroville, California, regarding the Following items at the follocwinc;t�.mes: ITEMS 'IRO WEN ALI�MPACTS HAVE BEEN �2ECOMMENDEDG 'ONDECLARATIONS REGARDING ENVII20NMEN William McGuire - Rezone from A-R (Agricultural- 10:30 a.m. Residential) and(;^buburb nd Uan-ResidE�ntial, 1 tTnclacre to SR-1 Parcels) located approximately 1,700 feet southwest of the Chico Canyon Road and Centennial Road intersection on the south side of Chico Canyon Road, identified as APO 011-02-0-002, 016, 095, Chico :30 a.m. William Baker et el-Use Permit to allow the -a' construction. of six duplex structures, on property 10 zoned A-R(Agricultural-Residential), Located on the north e:1 on side of Flelmrci Street, across from its easterly samide Chapmantown, identified as APO 005-�49-001-. Street, 03.2, Chico. 10:30 a.m. Thomas Reed Rezone from SR-3 (Suburban- Residential, 3 acreparcels) to M-1 (Light industrial), and Development Agreement; on ;property located on the north side of Thorntree Drive, 600 feet east of s Co}iassetRoad, identified as APO 048• 01-0-037, 0 � , 057, 05'9 , and 38, 04>:, 0.50, 054, 056 06,0 north of Chico The above mentioned applications, maps, and Negative Declarations are on rile and available for public viewing at the office of the Butte County Planning Department, 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, California; If you Challenge the above applicatiI in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the, public hearing described in this novice or in written` correspondence delivered to the Planning' Commission, at or prior to, the public hearing. BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HER, - ICIRCH , B.A. ----- To be published in the Chico Enterprise Record on Thursday, April: 27, 1989, - �u�a Vin. r%renin CNH Lig ,lneers �rovidlu 1280, IV, Wy Sti-co Chico, CX 9592 893-06i3sl March 24, 1989 Planning Department Country of Butte 7 County Center Drive Orovil_le Ca_ 95965' Attention: Mr. Dave Hi'ronimus RE: Use Permit, AP 5 - 49 1, '32 Dear Dave: Since our March 17, 1989 letter regarding acceptance of mitigation, measuresr,we have received additional information regarding the 1 sound generation of Chico Fun World and the surrounding aro.?. A sound impact survey was conducted in 'August, 1985 at the ,request of the -Cit,„e of Chico Planning Commission in conjunction with a use Permit for the Fun World operation. A copy is enclosed You will note that 60 DB2 is' seldom exceeded .during the periods surveyed. 'Therefore it would seem to be an "overkill'! to require mitigation measure 2 as it presently 'exists. The applicant has agreed to construct a fence along the property line and provide landscaping. However, it should be left to the applicant to determine the type of fence ;(solid) and landscaping desired.' Subsequent`sound level studies conducted by the City of Chico Police Department (copies not available) have shown no significant changes in sound level generation. Aocordingl;y, we request that mitigation measure 2 he amended to state that "applicant shall install a solid fence and landscaping adjacent to surrounding properties”. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, f � Mar. E R' sso , MER/pm cc: Baler/Camy Enclosure A & Q ENGINEERING Chvir Engineer's 1280 E. 9th Street Chzco, LA. 95928 BuffO Co. MannInq 8.93-6631 MAR 2 01989 Oroville, California March 17, 1989 Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive O ovine, CA 95965 Attention: fir. Dave Bironimus RE: Environmental Review Log No. 89 -- 01 - 19, 01 Blear Dane Reference is made to your letter dated. March 14, 1989 and the proposed mitigation measures included in the environmental document. The applicant agrees to connect to the City of Chico Sanitary Sewer System and to meet City requirements only as they pertain to payment of connection fees and i.�stallation of sanitary sewer main. A request for`an.,archaeological search has been filed with CSUC. The applica.r;;t agrees to comply with any recommendations of the Northeast Information Center, The remaining mitigation items are 'satisfactory to the applicant. Please call if you have any questions'. Sincer ly, Ma E. Risso MSR/pm cc: Baker/Camp Califorrra ��goT 111 (9 SCI®[f�ll sum siEARa Archaeological GLENN sisKwou Department of Anthrd�ology Inventory LASSEN surrEN California State Univorsity, Chico MGGGc rENaMA Chico, CA 95929 aiwMus TRINITY sNnsrn (916) $95-6256 -=u Dates March 17 1999 { L l y To: butte County Planning Buff a Co. Planning Cr,M #7 rzunty center Drs MAR 2.7 1989 nroville, ca. 95955 Oroville, Caufamia ret _�5-49-1 and al F?Y Fi _ 1 Dear County Planners, A review of the above project has revealed the following: The project e area. inc3�:cated as within the ro'ect boundarze� is considered to be archaeological,.iy sensitive. Present are: access to natural sources of water — Flat mea(kAaland or flat land neat water South and/or east•: facing slopes Previously recorded sites in, the vicinity Other: We Strongly reo that an archaeological reconnaissance be axxhicted of the area by a qualified archaeologist and appropriate mitigation measures prepared. A known site Car sites has/have been previously, recorded in the project area. Project operations mill have a -negative We zrpact on these cultural resources. �� archaeologist� ooritacte3',to assess,site �Prye amigati�nd that ;a qualified rosal, _-xx- Other: A �t�rcrPv Y�MQt recommended for the above ioxoiect.�However, should g Alio storir a storic cultural materials be encountered�di�ring proiect ol�erat zr�ns. al.l war} ; should cease immediately a_eridillq n" inspection of the site and materials by a qualified rofessional ,archaeologist. This person would 1 abi e to assess ss to significance and suggest mxtigaticn measures Thank you for the opportunity to review and cormnent on this proPosal. Please let eg us kncx� what decisions are made r ardi ngthe project.„ Sincerely, -Dr. takoto Rowta Northeast information Center Coordinator ,, / � A Don McClas,key' 343--6851 - 343.-4710 Chico World "G" Rcied Fomlly EnierialnmerM TUESDAY AUGUST 6t 1985 8:00 PM Under 60 DB2 at 22nd,& Elm Streets 8:3.0 PM Under 60 DB2 at 2240- ElmStreet 9:05 PM 70. DB2 with car going by at .22nd & Elm (other noises under 60 DB2) 9:10 PM Front of 2240 Elm Street-noise max. 62 DB 11:00 PM All noises under 60 DB2 12:00 MID All noises under 60 D82 except truck on C. freeway- 61 DB, THURSDAY AUGUST 81 1985 6:00 PM Under 60 D82 at 22nd & Elm Street 8:10 PM -,, Reading from freeway side (back) of park aprox. 100 ft. from batting cages & 200 ft from waterslides. ,Max.''noise 67: D92-- 69 DB2 9:00 PM Under 60 DBI at 22nd & Elm Sttleots 9:0.6 PM 61 'DB2 (scream) 9,07 PM 64 DB2 (dog barking) 11':00 PM All noises under 60 DB2 12:00 MtD All noises under 60 D$2 (NOTE: Sound meter range from 60 DB2 ' to 126 DB2. All cars were aprox o 20 ft. away from meter. Meter cannot,', read, sound under 60 DB2 ee sZd 2275 Elm Siree! Shofar bbilor rbirgrourxls Chico, CA 95926 :r LAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND 11 CAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVIL.LC, CALIFORNIA 95965.3397 PHONE: 530.7601 March 14, 1989 William Baker, et al 1350 East'Lassen Avenue, Suite l Chico, CA 95926 Re: Use Permit, AP 5--49-1, 32 Dear Mr. Baker An initial study of your proposed project, Use Permit, indicates potentially adverse impacts to the environment (refer to the enclosed environmental checklist). To reduce or eliminate these inlpact.s, suitable mitigation measures are required as part of the pr:_)ject. Oti`�erwise, an, Environmental Impact Report (EIR); is required pursuant to California Environmental . the CliQuality Act. in order-to,assess the'potential for adverse impacts and to determine what, if any, mitigation measures would be appropriate, regarding archaeological sites, you may contact the following office for a`records search and sensitivity evaluation,._ A site plan and/rr location map (preferably with Section, Township, Range) must be sent along with a fee of $10.00 payable to the Information Center for this service Northeast Information Center gs .,department.. of Anthropology California State University Chico, CA 95929-0400 Attention: Curator of Records Should the office recommend conducted, it will then bet�necessaryat an rcfor©loo to survey be individual why is professionall y u to contact an r . evaluation,, �, .,.Alist y qualified t!- provide such an is qualified local aconsultants is 'included....•; One of these individuals can be hired to perform the survey and provide mitiatiora recommendations as warranted. �. a A . AN An early response to this' notification,, Department, will. expedite the sent to the Plannin scheduling of forward your written response within 15 days this your from- ateaof .letter. the date- of Should you have any questions regarding contact this office between to:o0 this matter r lease p a.m. and',3:op p.m. Sincerely, B. A. Kircher Director of Planning` C- David P. Hironimus, l Associate Planner DRH : l r Enc. cc: A&Q Engineering K 1.280 E. 9th Street, Sate C Chico, CA 9592E j, ' •... , r W N!`M Y�'MRr Y+.%'fT:,�ttd .l l'rh.ad'rl, tl #. :';�+ a K<. u. �.ss t�µ•X.«'z"� zd.�*,.ds J, � 1.. +-„c"n T't"b x,.-_ aw AWL AWk APPENDIX I GQUrNI:c°Y 0V s3U0c7C' RN'VTR0NMRNTAT_. CHRCKI TS" -r FORM (To be completed 'by Lead,Agency) LOG NO,' 89-01--19-01 AP Na, 5-49-1, 32 I. �,P,.GIt�RCTETIV7D 1. Name of proponent William 'Bal ar, et al 2. Address of proponent and representative (if applicable); 1350 East Lassen Avenue A & Q Engineering' 11 f:0, Chico, CA 95926 3. Project f ucturestiQn., aUse_Perm' duplex p it to allow the construction of 6 II. MAl\DATC7aY`' I-TWr)iNGS OF S2GN3[.VX0 11TC! ; YES" MAYBE NO 1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of'a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population t,o, drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal commmnity, 'reduce the 'number at restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminateimportant examples of major periods of California history or prehistory?_ _ 2. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term benefits to the detriment of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the envirownent is one which occurs in a relatively brief period of time while Tong -term impacts will endure into the future.) 3. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small} but where the effect of the total of those impacts an the environment is significant.). 4. Does the project have environmental effect:; which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DET]ERMT_NA'ICY QN (To be completed by the bead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation; I/WF, find the proposed project COULD NOT have a'significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find that although the proposed project COULD have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be n significant effect in this case because the MITIGATION MEASURES described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I/WE find the proposed project MAY have a 'significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL.IMPACT REPORT is required, COUNTY OF BUTIZ, PLANNING DEPARTMENT March 14, 1.989 DA'T'E : By ; , d� +r r✓ -r*--'--�^ David A. Hironimus Associate Planner: Reviewed by: IV. H;N xn6NM_-ENTAT_ TM PAC!MS Ex ( planatio ns of all "YES" and "MAYBE" answers are required on attached sheet(s), 1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in significant-, YES MAYBE No . a. Unstable earth conditions', or changes in geologic substructures? X b. Disruption, displacement, compat_tion or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? %c d. Destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physico features?' a. 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 siltation; deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river 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, mudsli.deS, ground failure or similar hazards? 2. AIR. Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Air e-4.ssions or deterioration of ambient air quality; b. The creation of objectionablc� odors, smoke -or fumes? r c. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in c , y regionally? ,timate locally or 3. WATER. Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements in either marine ov fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of ,surface runoff? c. Need for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or culvert installation? d. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? _ x e; Change in the 'amount of surface water in any water body? X f. Discharge into juru ace waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but 'not limited to temperature) dissolved oxygen r o turbidity?o —� - g. Alteration of the directi.rn or rate of flow of ground waters? h. quantity yorrqualrty of ground waters, either through n the or direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer directsadd tionsexcav by i. Reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? J, Exposure of people or, property to wafer -related hazards such ax. flooding'! ---`- 4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in substantial a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of anyspecies of plants (incuding trees, shrubs gxass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. 'Reduction of the aumbers'of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. In. oduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to, normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?� .MAYBE Ap+ynm LIQ,. Will the propnsal result in substantial: YES - NO a. species, or numbers of 1ny species of animals Change in the diversity of reptiles, fish and shellfish, organisms' >( (birds, land animals including or insect -s)2 b. Reduction in,the number, of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?, d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. NOISE, Will the proposal result in substantial: a. Increases in existing noise levels? = b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ?, LIG1HT AND GLARE: Will the proposal produce significant light and glare? _-- g, LUSE. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the RND present or plamied land use of an areal g.NATURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Increase in the rate of use of a.ly natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable na:%ural resources? — 10. RISK 0F UPSET. Will the proposal invdive: a. A risk of explosion of release of t,,azardous substances (including, but radiation) in the event not limited to; ail, pesticides, chemicals or of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 11. nEjjiA=. Will the proposal alter location, distrrl xtion, density or growth rate of the human population? 12. HOUSING. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or ,reate a demand for additional housing. 13; VANS POR TATIQNICIRCULATION. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicle movement? — b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? — Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? c. d. Significant alterations to present patterns of circulation or y� 1111 ✓� movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic7 ----- `— f, Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles) bicyclists or padestrneed ✓� LIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, of result in a need 1 4 PUB for new or altered government services. a. Fire protection b. P olice'protection? . c. Schaolsor d. Parks other recrea tional facilities?` road e. Maintenance of, including public facilities ' s? f. Other governmental services? u3 1S, ENERGY. Will the .proposal resultin: a• Use Of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? YESMAYBE NO b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of ener require the development of new gY, or sources of energy? 16, UTILITIES __ Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following., a. Ppwer or natural gas? b• Communications systems? C. Water availability? d. Sewer or septic systems? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? d\ 17, HUMAN HikLTH• Will the proposal result in: a. 'Creation of any healh hazard or potential.'hazard health)? (excluding mental b, Exposuxe of people to potential health hazards? 18. AESTHETICS ESTHET_ TCS, Will the proposal result ' vista or view open to the obstrustioh o£ any; scenic p the public, ~ creation of or dill the proposal result in the an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. RECREATION — Z—tjt • Will ;the proposal result' ii an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURr,Es„ ^— a.. Will the proposal r�,sult in the alteration. or destruction of a Prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b• Will the proposal result in adverse to a prehistoric or historic dvesePhysical or aesthetic effects building, structure - �— or object? c. bees the proposal have the potential to cause a wh'ch would affect unique ethnic change cultural valttesphysical d• Will the proposal restrict fire potential impact area? existing religious or sacred uses within D:CSCU'SS=bN G: T~;NVYRC� NZvAI;NTAT�iiAL,L7TC�N See attached, y r:r.r AL DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AF # 5-49-1, 32 la,e,f,3b,c0If,l6e: Devel.opmeat of 12 dwelling units on the property will lead to some disruption, displacement, compaction, and over_covering of the soil which will lead to changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff. While the erosion potential of the property, is low, some still remains. The additional stormwa•ter runoff will requiro a permanent solution to drainage. No,facil_ities currently exist In the area, however, plaais proposed as part of the Chapman/Mulberry $pocific Plan indicate that tkt.e area could be drained by providing a Storm drainage system that would be in the street in front of the subject property andL would run that southerly and westerly to .existing storm drainage j facilities.The cost of installation of such a sy,,,tom for this project alone, may he probibitive. Ig" While the'soils in the vicinity are vina loam and are considered excellent for agricultural uses, surrounding development has effectively destroyed this area as agricultural land. lh: All of But County is within a, moderate earthquake intensity Zone VITT. The subject property is located approximately '6 miles southwest of the Tuscan Monocline, a - fault system of unknown activity. Construction of buildings to Uniform Building Code standards for seismically active areas should provide adequate protection to occupants in case .of seismic activilty. 6b: The subject property is located in close proximity to industrial uses which have historically created severe noise levels and also the Chico Fun World outdoor recreational'facil.i,ty which is known to have high noise levels„ particularly during the summer months when residences commonly experience outdoor activities. While construction methods can minimize interior noise: level,.s, outdoor noise levels can only, be attenuated through use of sound walls or extensive .landscaping, The Noise Element of the Butte County General should anindicates teed itono err noise levels for multi -family dwellings .1 than _5 dB CNEL. This can be accomplished through the use of additional insulation,and double or even triple pane glazing in windows. Window openings should be aligned away from noise sources as should any other openings. As noted above these standards would have no_ affect on outdoor uses which ma be subject to severe noise levels. 8: The character of Lthe neighborhood is currently mostly single family dwellings. Development of 12 units c:n this property .would represent a departure from the single—family character of the area famil character of the neighborhood should indicates that the single The draft Specific Plan for this,area also ld be maintained . While the ButtecountyGeneral Plan designates the 'subjectro ert P P y as Medium Density Residential, such densities would not be appropriate until such time as street improvements and drainage P Addittionally, it,should be noted that the AVRmzone ents are adopted in the arc-� '' � e was to allow the keeping of chickeras, rabbits.,... and � -5- other small livestock that is currently prevalent in the area while still.' allowing urban densities. When the General Plan was amended the Medium Density Residential designation was picked, in part, because it was the only 'designatd_on other than High Density ?residential that recognized the A -R zone as a compatible zr-ne. 11 li : See item- 8. 13: Development of 12 residential units on this property Will generate additional traffir4. This traffic will represent an incremental ince ase 'in traffic hazards in the area. It should be noted that most` of the streets in the immediate vicinity are substandard. While the Department of Public Warks will require road improvements as a condition of approval of this project, it will, only affect` 1.21 feet of frontage 14's This project will represent an,'incremental increase in demand for public services in the area. 14c: Public schools within the Chico area are generally impacted The school district has adopted development fees which are being used to solve the overcrowding conditions in the area. See the attached letter from the 'Chico Unified School District. 16d The applicant proposes to hook up to City of Chico sewers Since the project is adjacent to the Chico City limits the City will require the property to be annexed. Discussions with the City of Chico indicate that z�io development will be possible on City sewer until the project has received 09velopment approvals from the City of Chico. 19 Development of this project in close proximity to Chico Fun World is likely to generate complaints regarding noise. See comments under Item 6b above. Complaints of this nature have caused review of the Chico Fun World Use Permit before the Chico City Council in the past and has created restrictions on the; operation of this recreational facility. Thesites may occur. it is'necessary to performcheck area where archaeological subject property 3.n ara records '°t,',Zrougli P p y is located the Department of Anthropology at the California State University, Chico, If so, an archaeological co, in order to determine if,significant sites may be Located on p Y survey'of the property may be inecessary. i Ii. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 1. See Item 20a. 3. See discussions' under Items 1, 3 6 13, 16, and 19. 41 See discussions under items 6 ani 19. Recommended Mitigation Measures- -6- et al Assessor's Parcel Applicant: William Baker, 5-49-lt 32 Log # 89-01-19-01 DATA SHEET A. PLo ect DescriPtion 1. Type of Project. Use Permit. 'P 'Description: To allow the constructionof'six duplex 2. Bri..f, structures (12 dwelling units) m Street its 3. Location: On the northeasterlyseinothe lChapmantowntarea intersection with East 22nd street of Chico.t: 5`.3 dwelling units per 4. Proposed Density of Developmen acre.roximately 50%. 5 Amount of, impervious Surfacing: A PP 6. Access and . Nearest Public Road(s): Property fronts on Elm Street. City of Chico hco sanitary sewer. 7. Method of Sewage DisposalCalifornia : Water Service Company. g', :Source of Water Supply': To propert y 9. Proximity of Power Lines: 10. Potential for further land. divisions and development: None. g,� environmental Setting Ph sisal Environment: 1. Terrain a,, General`Topographic Character: .Flat valley. lands. b. Slopes: 0-2%. c, Elevation: 205 ft. A.S.L. d Limiting Factors t None. 2. Soils generally deep ,a. Types and Characteristics: Vinaood pereability• soil that are well drained with g b. Limiting Factors: None. 31, Natural Hazards of the Land Moderate earthquake intensity Zone a, Earthquake Zones "JLxI • b,' Erosion Potential: Low. C. Landslide potential: None. d. Fire Hazard: Unclassified.H gh. e. Expansive Soil Potential: 4. Hydrology a. surface Water: None on-site. �, erali to la Ground Water: Potentially h.gh ldvdrains ges ofnerally C, Drainage Characteristics: Lan the southwest toward Comanche Creek: d Annual Rainfall. (normal): Approximately 24" per year,, �3` Limiting nitrates and possible e. ng Factors: to : roundwater withdrawasurrounding substance due to high groundwater by u�,lity : _ Fair, 5• visual/Scenic 4+ surrounding industrial urban development. romised by al_i.ty. . Comp 6 Acoustic Qu' and recreational development' ,nant valley during periods of st�' 7. Aix' Quality* Goc,d except air. Eia10 cal Environment, Vegetation: Valley oak grassland. $ • Haritat: Small birds and animals common to vat:�1 .e 9. Wild1 fe oak grasslands. Cultural Environme=.� High and Historical Resources in the area• 1p. Archaeologicalarea. �, designation: '.Medium Density sensitivity General plan.. 11. Butte County Residential. A -R. te: 1e family dwelling, 12. Existing Zoning: one sing 13. Existing 'tend Use on-si Surrounding Area single family residential uses 14. Generally d multi -family a. Land Uses: is Fun with small commercial throughout. anEasterly developments scatteredand industrial World an outdoor recreational facility zones. sites. of Chico industrial Residential, b. Zoning: A -R and City Medium Density plan Designation. c. Gen. and public• from 6500 square Industrialparcel sizes range d parcel °Sizes: feet to 10 acres and resaderitia7 •der residential. area of e. Population: of Character of Site and Area: �.5 • ed b substandard lot sizes dwellstreet ngs n Chico characteriz Y g .widths with a high ;. percentage of substandard various stages of rehabilitation. Chico Area Ne�rest.Usphereseof Chico* City of Chico, 16 � 3nf1 nce. 17 Relevant SP yes. Recreation and Park District. 18 improvement Standards Urban Area: Fair Street 19. Fire Protection ''Servicestate) Fire .. Station: a, Nearest county ( Station#California Water Service Company b WaterAvailability' hydrants and fire tankers. 20 SC ools in Area: Chico Unified School h District _9r �. o"uifeCo. Pipnnfn .-- g Cmm, ' JAN Il 1999 Orovills, California OFFICE OF THEAdministrative Office ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT 1163 EAST SEVENTH STREET ADI'tfINISTRATIVE SERVICES (916) 891-3140 CHICO, CA, 95929-5999 (916) 891-3000 January 10, 1989 �• Mr. Craig Sanders Planning Technician Butte County Planning Department 7 county Center Drive Groville, CA 95965 Re: Chico Unified School District REVIEW & ENVIRONMENTAL Response to vo .Baker Use Permit NMENTAL Eil'AI,UATIgN"� �`�'�D�-rECT rmit Application for, the William Dear Mr. Sanders In response to 0 the William Your letter dated January a i.am Baker Use permit A , 19$9 �;,;�ardi.ng, to allow the construction of s%lduptionstruc #5-49-1 arty Located on the northeaster) .d tu�'zS on #5-49-1, 32) its intersection wigs 22nd Street, Cha � prop - from the District fzhds that the ,y �� cf Elm Street, across pmaxltown, Chico,. schools serving this area. d lvelapmerlt will impact ,the Based on the averago number of students per s in the school district P residential unit menit, w 11 house approximately it is Projected that this develop - Ill school in i,s filled Y school age children. Pendin6 the completion of a new ells Each. to capacity, greater Chico area ntary school(s) in the Will continue to be accommodated viaased Sreloof elementary will s'tud�nt ca'�able classrooms' elementary schnoL campuses. The Placed on existing the area (Chico Junior High School) for ha.tah school.. servnr� crowding at the junior high school s level willa.paoity. increase g hoof junior _ Over- , and the District wilt hasalread�ll aanti.n,4; to nat1Ve housing options foullior h' r those students pendia the explored alter- Pletian of anew 7chxca Scom- serving the area g g s additional students'. er�' High School),c high school g school. The � ecan accommodate Cho Senior date Uoun LAND OF NATURAL Vs,[A11`II AND BEAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE 0 ROVIL4E, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 PHONE: 538.7601 January 19, 1989 William; Baker, et a1 1350 East Lassen Avenue Suite 1 Chico, CA 95926 RB Use Permit APO 05--49-01, 32 Dear Mr. Baker, We have received the balance of the a project Included is your receipt acknowledging PPlication ffinal ee rpayment. Your application is now comple'-e and can be process by this department. 'eu will be notif'M �d by mail of the dat- the Planning Commission hearing. e and time of Sincerely, $.A.- KIRCHER )Director of Plan g arry Pam ter planning Technician LP: fcu Cc: A & 0 Engineering, Mark Risso Enclosure: Receipt #10535 Y�,.. . . .... Co LAND OF NATURAL WEAL 111 A I J 0 'BEAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROYILLE, CAL,IPONNIA 09965.3397' PHONE; 530:7601 J'anuar'y 4, 1989 William Baker, et a1 1350 East Lassen Avenue Suite 1 Chico, CA 95926 RE: Pre -Application Review AP* 5-49--1, 32 Dear Mr. Baker,: This is to notify you that we have received sufficient Lssu.rances .from Butte County Environmental Health and Public Works Departments that your project can meet their require- ments. This fulfills the Pre -Application review process. No all be per ,ormed on this project until we have r received the remaining application fees in the amount of $ 257.5a Please 'submit these' fees to the Butte County Planning Department in person or by w il. Make checks payable to the Butte County Treasurer. We are also including a field marker for 'identification of the project. Please secure the ribbon to a conspicuous place, preferably visible from the roadway. Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to contact this office any weekday between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Sincerely, B . A ., KIRCHER. Director of Planning Craig Sanders .Assistant Planner' CS:fcix cc: A&Q Engineeriing,;Mark Risso (loan LANID OF III ATU RA L V, F,A1.TII AtID _ PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 TELEPHONE,, (91.6) 638.7601 December 20 1988 A&Q Engineering Attn: Mark Risso 1280 E. 9th Street Chico, CA 95928 RE: 'Use Permit APrr5-49-1,32 Dear Mark; Thank you for informing me of the delay regard; pre-applicat?on on the subject~ Your clients file will be revieed to ng your clien.4s Property. You can be sure. that. the delay. We regret any inconvenience thisoine the reason for YOU or your client.Y have caused Enclosed for your information is an Explanation cation Processing Procedure. of the appli- cation Additionally, , as a ' result of the delay in re s ` o subject appliCationt the six month Ponding to she formal application'will commence on December Complete the the Again, thank you for Your interest. Sincerely, �r �f ,A. K�ZRCHER Director of Planning 8AX : j me Enc. Walliam Baker, et al w cc: /enclosUre BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE TO ALL APPLICANTS Effective July 2, 1985, the project review,procedote for Use Permits and, Variances was revised by the Board of Supervisors. The Planning Departn,Mnr will no longer process an application for a Use Permit or Variance, without :a review by both,the Butte County Environmental Health Department and the Butte County Department Df Public Works Land Development Section. Prior to the formal application to the Planning Department for a'Use Permit or Variance, the applicant must provide the necessary' information to the Environmental Health Department, Land Development Division, and Planning Department to ensure compliance with appropriate ordinances. Effective June 21, 1988, all information required from an applicant in order to process his pre -application must be submitted within six months from; the date this, initial pre -application was submitted to -the Planning Department. Upon Tentative approval of a land use permit or variance by the Environmental Health Department and Land Development Division of the Department of public Works, the applicant must submit a completed formal application including any required changes from the original submittal and the balance of the fees. Effective Rule 21, 1988 this must be completed within 6 months of the tentative approval. The information required for the pre -application review for the Use Permit or Variance is identical with that which is reauired for the final application, and unless modified during the pre -application review will be used for the application for the public hearing. The request for the pre -application review must be accompanied by fees in the amountof$195.50 for a Use Permit and $135.50 for a Variance. There will be a remaining fee of $37,50 and applicable e.,1,r4 onmental review fees to pay upon the final application for the formal application. M& QE . NGI V 'EI�11VG 3uffeCo. Planning Ctptnrm Civil Engineers DE(, 15 988 1280 E. 9th Street Clilco, CA, 95928 Oroville, t:alifornis 893-0631 December 13, 1988 Punning Director County of Butte 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Attention: Mrs. Bettye Kircher RE: Use Permit, AP # 5 - 49 - 1, 32 Dear. Bettye: Today, I received the attached response to our preliminary for the subject Use Permit. It is my understanding that your department wishes to simplify and accelerate the process by provid.L�ig 'a preliminary review process (`for which- a fee is' charged) This application was submitted to your office on October 28,, 1988, (45) days accordance with your Use Permit procedures. Forty- five for review ay alater we receive an innocuous letter, the substance of which states that you, have receive,' the application. No concerns or; requests for additional informatio,., are expressed. . The letter takes.5 paragraphs to state nothing has happened.' My client has expressed a desire to have the process clarified. I can only tell him that there is no process. I will further 'advise him and my other clients to ignore the so called "preliminary process" on all further submittals as it appears to be nothing more than a bureaucratic method of setting aside legislative tinme,limits. In short, I will advise my clients that complying Frith -our d:part- ment's shortcuts will insure that hi.s.applicatiolu will be "dropped through the cracks", perhaps nearer to 'surface again. I feel your department has ,committed a major disservice'to my client in this matter. I 'leave it to him to pursue it further. Sincerely, y Mark E. Risso MER/pm Enclosure cc: Baker & Associates ..�� . �Q0_1 couaw�i SAND OF NATURAL WEALTH AND 8EA1. ty PLANNING COM',"SSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE OROViL ,, +L1PO,RN1l+, 9596S•3197 William Bake PHONE- 538.7601 150 Eastr, et a1 Lassen Avenin: December 12, 1988 Suite 1 Chico, CA 95926 RE USE' ,�ERMZT , AP#5-49-13.2 Doan Mr Baker: We :received your subject USE PERMITPre-application review request for the Butte County Public Work3 and Environmental Health c information you submitted, have received the Department will .consider this The. Plar�nina after we have assurances from thelication complete on trple g the project from with above de a• anY conditions imposed ca n fitments that h appropriate ordinances and n be met It is the applicants responsibilitx to additional information needed b Provide any Environmental Health to meet their urequ Works or requirementsy. Public Works may be contacted by telephone at 53f3 -72G6 and Environmental Health at '538- to their evaluation8 information asoffor further their requirements proposal and The Planning Department staff will also be r the application for an ev ewing Lhat are appropriate. Y apecial,conditi-ons or modifications about the Pre- riate. Should you have„an pre -application review Y questions'' Office. , please contact this Sincerely, -� n.n. KIRCHER' Director of Planning Craig Sanders Planning Technician CS jmc CC, A&Q Engineering Mark Risso AIL A-1 en, �_' LAMD OF NATURAL_WEALTH AND BEA UTY PLANNING ,COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVIL,L,E, CALIFORNIA 95965-3,197 PHONE, 538.7601 William Baker, 'et al 1350 East Lassen Avenue December 12� 1988 Suite '1 Chico, CA 95926 RE: USE PERMIT AP#5-49-1,32' Dear Mr. Baker: We received your pr-e-applicat4�on review request for the subject USE PERMIT. Butte County Public works and Environmental. Health received the information you submitted. The Planning Department will consider this application complete only after we have assurances from the 'above departments that' the, project complies with appropriate ordinances and' any conditions imposed, can be met. 7t« is the applicants responsibility to 'provide any additional information needed by Public: Works' or .Environmental Health to meet their requirements. Public Works may be tontacted bytelephone:at 538-7266 and Environmental Health at 538-7281 for further information as to their evaluation of the proposal and their requirements I. The Planning Department staff will also be reviewing the application for any special conditions or. modifications Lhat are appropriate. Should you have any questions about the pre-,application review, please contact this office. Sincerely, B.A4 KIRCHER Director of Planning 1 Craig Sanders Planning Technician CS:jmc CC: A&Q Engineering - Mark Risso I0 AIL Ufa Co. P1enn1"0 i7mrrr, C1 L (")ravillo.p t«r+iifoniia BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTiIMENT PRE -APPLICATION REVIEW FORM To Environmental Health Howard Snyder Date: ,L2 -12-8g RE': pre -Application. Review Information for: William Bakex, et 'a1 1350 East Lassen Avenue Suite L reliChico, CA 896-31.32 Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated' concerning the,' following project: AP#5-49-11 32 - USE nER.IvIIT to allow the construction of 6 duplex structures, zoned A -R,, located on the northeasterly side of Elm St., across from its ---------------------------- intersection with 22nd St., Chapmantawn, Chico. Please indi-cate your response by checking the appropriate box. No requirements for this project. The project as proposed can meet this Departments requirements Sufficient proof has been given that the applicant can meet the following conditi&ns. approved: l� 4__t& ' I The pz�,)Ject as proposed can/does not meet the requirements of this department.. A revision of the project will be necessary. The applicant rias been contacted r;rith this information. 5nvironmental Health Signature: 19€� Sag e: DEC 12 Qreville, California 3 TS T TBU'TTC l`J L=Str For-" C0MZ-1T-r�7'rS c;outnty Public Works r� scayxr_g: rr ArrA Ern YVT County Environmental. Health_ State Water Resources Department City of 'Biggs – U.S. Forest Service — U.S. Bureau of Laxed Management t�!~�' ity of Chico Gridley Butte county Mining Committee City of Griy _ rd State Department of. -'Fish & Game City of: Town of OrovPaaille California Native Plant Society ise Planting D artment' ~y State Diva Forestry - attention State Transportation Department Craig Carter ;regional Water Qual. ConCrol Bd. State Reclamation Board y�C7:�YI:STTC WATER Butte Water District sEG7ER alifornia Wa`,:er'Service Co. Richvale Sanitary District Del Oro Water CO. _ North Burbank Pub. 17til. Dist. OWID 4 kansen Sub. ( CSA # 21) Thermalit,o Irrigation District Stirling City Sewer Maint. . Dist. Other Th rmalito Irrigation'District ((,LA # 26 ) V 1'T 1=TTES TR.RTGAT'TON WATER t� G&E North ( Chico) Biggs-�W . Gridley Water District PG&E South (Marysville) 4y Butte Water District PG&E o Bell Durham Irrigation District Late TV Cable OWID State TV Gable Paradise Irrigation District Richvale irrigation District Table Mountain Irrigation Dist. rxREoTEC��� Thermalito Irrigation District El Medio Fire Protection Dist. =--County Fire'Department/CDF PBATIVA.GE DISTRICT MOS(ti7TTO r �aATEMErrT TaTST zcT �.-- -- Durham, Orovzlle or Butte County 32EC �At�EA�L'ZC7N �?STR2C:`T _ State Highway Patrol�.- �,-<ounty Sheriff s cxoOL o�-aE,rrz� DYST2�TCT L -'7-J ES�CC�MM2SSZCiNS CCMMTTTE R7� CiZEAT2C9NAirZLTT7:ES 4, Chico Area Recreation District Paradise Pines Architectural burham .Area Rec. & Park. Dist.' Control. Committee ---- Feather River Rea. & Park, Dist. Butte County Farm Bureau Paradise Ree. & Park Dist. Community Associatiahe Richvale Rec. & Park Dist; State Parks & Rec. Dept. • .._. – . ��sS•ke �o. �Mrw+irl BUTTE COUNTY PLANNING coriMISSIoNr MAR 0 )�+c County11eCAn��96D�339 draa+�d8�. �i;raarn� 7 Orov 7 (916) '533-•7601 ,fin. c TO: of Chico DATE; MAI `✓ RE: PROJECT REVIEW & , ENVIRONMEN'T'AL EVALUATION Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received or generated concerning the following project: William Baker, et al, AP#5-49•-4;32 USE PEPMIT to allow the construction of 6 duplex structures on property zoned A-R al-Re (Ag ridultur sidential), located on the northeasterly side of Elm Street, across from its intersection with 22nd Street- Chbniantown, - Chico. We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be an,environmental document, either a-N,,,gative Declaration, Negative Declaration g sures or an 'Environmental Dcclara�Li.on' with Miti a,tion ,Mea Impact Report (EIR). Please,p.rovi:de any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or expertise that relate to either physical, social, or economic impacts that this project may generate. Please respond within 14daysof the above-noted date. If no response is generated by this nquiry,'then it shall be assumed that there are no significant environmental. impa4ts' which are potentT al from the project. I' We appreciate any assistance you can provide:' Sincerely, March 9,' 1989 Craig anders Planning 'Technician Comments The development of the subject property would require annexation to the City obtain sewer service'. Permitted Use(s) would have to be established Cit of Chico to by prezoning, use permit, or rezoning after ann'xation. zanne Myers, AsPlanner Does your agency wish to receive a eop�' f the env roam tal document (initial � ,study for Negative Declaration. (with or without Mitigation` Measures -Or EIR for this project)., x YES Fq Dole Co. Planning C:a;Ak nrt� 1: 19eq BUTTE COUNTY. PLANNING COMMISSION orovilln, Ilfoirnia 7 County Center rDrive Oroville, CA 95965-3397 (91.6) 538-7601. TO California Water Service DATE; 1540 Esplanade Chico, CA 95926 PROJECT ,RD(7x� �W & n ENVIRONM."ENTAL EVALUATION Enclosed is preliminary data our office has received, or generated concerning the following project: 64i11iamBaker, et al., AP75-49-1,32 USE PERMIT to allow the construction of 6 duplex strixctures on groperty zoned A -R (Agricultuzal-Residential) , located on the northeaste,�1 y. S1de of Elm'Street, across from its in r5ection' 2 _ Stree t Chapmantbwn, with 2nd Chicr We are making an assessment of possible environmental impacts and will be preparing an environmental. document, either a,Negative Declaration, ith Mitigation Measures or an Environmental Negat=ve Declaration w Report (EIR) Please 'provide any factual statements, ideas for investigation, or opinions you can offer in your area of concern or e.{pertise that relate to either physical, social, or 1conomic impacts that this project may generate. Please respond within 14 days of the abo a ted date. -if no response is generated by this inciuiry, then it sh ....._ assumed that there are no sign f cans environmental. m]oacts wliici, --e potential from; the project. We appreciate any assist,ice you can provide, Sincerely, Craig anders Planning Technician comments: THIS TS WITHIN bCJR St TtVICE AREA. AND CAN BE PRbVIDED WITH HATER SERVICE. MAIN REPLACEMENT.` AND/OR EXTENSION MAY I3E NECESSARY.' Does our agency wish :to aacopy f theoenvironmental document y g copy (initial study for Negata' hout Mitigation Measures);, or EIR for this project) h BUTTE COUNTY P I ° Co. P1,91"q ����� �aM�sssrorr tno o 7 County Center �� ' oroville, 'CA 93965rive .19 1989 (916) 1538-' 7 6 01avEEl®, C~olifn�;� TO: ores try DATE: RE: P'ROJ'ECTTTIE*rV ENVI.RO,NMENITAL EVALUATION Enclosers is preliminar• Jncer g pro'ecw.. wi].lian _d o; r^ Hing the to data�ou office has recexvn USE RERi Baker, It al, AP45-aged gene_at -to o allow the construetian o - - l 2 zoned A-R lA ..,-.. male ,sty. • ultural-Reed locater� uctu.res on rir grxc Of h E�.m Street ac _ ---- _.,? the northeaste �dde C.h1Cl7. r �-aSS, from 1.t,,,r. int.�rsection We are making,a y n assessment of town, be preparing an environmental'daossible environmental N� gai�re Declaration wi �h nt, either a.'Pacts Impact Report Mitigation Me and wi11 (ETR), asure.s or Neaative Declarat� , Envira Declaration nZental, Please pravi de an on �+; Y fact il! ans you car offer factual 'statements, ideas to either physical �n your area for in•7estig�tion, or generate. � social, or eco. of concern or e"mertise rel •economic impacts.. �, • .that ate Pleas e respond project may is p within 1� days of the abeave�•n generated key this inquiry, then it s otpd date. If no res. Fro ect�facant envYronmenta i�npac;ts whhall b� ass - '� are as---L-Med that thew are Potential from the. We appreciate an ass` stance you can, prat--de. Sincerely , Craigzia Planning Technician Comments: -�- ,.A hydrant for fire rote,ctxon wi11 be l,o Th location' have been rlc�ted on the "wired. siz and r Does your ag�nc . .�.;..�� "�� �•.y Cini tial stuen y wish to receive Mea for Negative Declaration sura . p' of t to envi ronmental 5) or `tIR cella dor this pro. ectj ; Cwzth` or wit,hattt c�ocui j Mitigation NO t 15 \ \4 t met! 1 �. LJ 1 ty ��'r : f•1 i � 1, t "V. 1 I� DIY. A. A x tIC4/�TT�.. �•j. ' 41 r .t �a 77777777771, 777 rl,(.; tva. M COUNTY OF BUTT OFFICE OF PLANNING CUZ41iMISSION 7 COUNTYC,BN'TER DRIVE ' T rtb£R ORO'VILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-3397 �Vi`fi hts r,ffi l ffiM7ll �. 7t144i4r`'� Oldn E*t0d ltiuifRti Addrrw "r #5-55-9 4' y un. n Pacific Railroad 526 ' ssion Sa >r :n _F1 � ai s o 4 �» `� �,� ,� �;,� c , CA 9 1Q 5 f! ( fit �if.l!