Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout044-830-004r LTJ', • . I • y e i Y a •r r ;� 1 �. .r �A It PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY SHEET FOR LAND DIVISIONS 84-03-13-02 APPLICANT APPLICANT Lincoln Development Inc. ADDRESS 853 ivlanzanita Court, Ci)jco )5926 OWNER Same PrOJFECT DESCRIPTION r_i'entatye Subdivision Tentative Condominium Complex Subaivision Mapone parcel of 5.71 w' S 60units LOCATION At the southurest corner of Highway 99 anal Lassen Avenue, Chico ASSESSOR ' S PARCEL NUMBER(S) 44-83-04 ZONING R-4 GEN. PLAN Mori Den Res PROJECT CONSn7.'MTT DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED_ 3/15/84 , , - nng. ifi �ttby_ 5uzyeying ` _r Bl 6.j,ye 5,rI c aj� a,se 95969 DATE PUBLICATION NOVICE WRITTEN' --� PUBLISHED PLACE VW SPAPER NOTICED) PUDL14711Nll 0. G. P. G. B. DAr,t NAILING 1,1.41T PREPARED DATE MAIL -OUT NOVICES WRITTEN _ MAIi,T-;D , � � � NUMBER DAT PLANNING DI RBCTOL * S REPORT nrt' u I`ANED x JTRONMBN'TAL LL _ CATi"G3ORI"'A1, EXi'MPTION DATE FILED i�TERMINATION AND DATE NEGt1111 E DECLARATION DATE ADOPTED .F NITIGNPED NEGATIVE' DECLARATION - DATE ADOPTED_ ENV. IMPACT' hEPORT DATE CERTIVIED _ _ .. ,mow _.� ......:a-+• - _. Stiff. COMMITTAB N Lt Li TJNG DATE ADVISO'itY AGENCY IJEARING3 rATL �� - � a����. � � �. �e _`�•� `",` ' t '�'w� � 46 y4 AnVISO'RX AGENCY ACTION DCAX ACTION .. COM- NTIS i Goun LAND OF NATUKAI. W'EAI.`tH AND BEAUTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS WILLIAM (Hill) ChJEFF, 01roctor 7 COUNTY CE 'TER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 Tetcp! pnc: (916) 04.4681 �s °�n900 February 25, x.985 . VA, as 6 t.•: y C1 191 Lincoln Development rt c. l�Q► RE: AP �atiV6 )E .853 Manzanta Court � tentative Subdivision Map 'Chico, CA 95926 Lincoln Development Inc. Gentlemen: 1 u the regular meeting of the Butte County Advisory Agency held on I'ebruary'25, 1985, the agency noted that a letter was submitted by the engineer for the project atating that the applicant 60e8 not wish to proceed with the project at this time and wishes to withdraw the appeal of the requirement for an environmental impact report, If you have any questions regarding bh e matter, please contact this office: Very truly yourc,, William Cheff Director of )?!abbe Works Jon Mendonsa Asuistant Director JMjds r Health f 5ierra'West Ourveying . banez orchards, P. C, Boar 34) Chico 4 Inter -Departmental 'Memorandum To: Butte County Advisory Agency FROM; Laura Tuttle - Assistant Planner ,/ SUNECT! Re- BIR Appeal/Lincoln Development'1 DATE: May 10, 1984 Whether or not an BIR is prepared on this property, the following items need to be addressed by mitigation nheasures; 1) Erosion: i 2) Drainage, 3) Noise'. 4) 'Transportation/circulation: including discussion of split diamond (see 1084 RTZP) 5) impact on; public services,, particularly schools, b) Relationship to nitrate study; connect to sever? LT s atv cc Lincoln Development In:. k 14amby Surveying bcc Mike Mcl'ltespy, North 8tar Engineering N N n HAMBYSURVC . iNQ RNC. LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR CALIFORNIA-NEVADA P.O:BOX842.65N BECKWITH p,0. BOX HH - 5437 BLACK OLIVE PORTOLA, CALIFORN IA 96122 PHON 6: (916) 632.5571 PARADIM CALIFORNIA 95969 .PHONE: (916) 877.6253 I April 26) 1984 CUR Co. Flr:�fring,00,11 r. 1 r4 Grc�villo, L+°raltlarr„� Oot::� �ty of Butte Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Opoville, CA 95965 FE Lincoln Development, Ina. Gentlemen; AP 7'44-83-04 We hereby appeal the request to the preparation of an Environmental impact Report, as stated in the letter 2rom your department on ;April. 18, 1984- SOHO We feel tie 00,gool issue is already Weld. documented and an Environmental Impact Report 'Would serve Clo Pur prase at this time. TRANS PORTA�pj()N/C IRCULAITION ON: This project meet$ the zoning and general plan re� quirements established for this area, therefore, an Environmental Impact Report shuuldn't be necessarl UTILITIES: SEWER. OR SEPTIC We arc presently meeting with the State Water Quality a6Atrol Board and the Butte County Environmental Health Department. We Will be required to meet all of their ,regarements, therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary. '.khan% you for your conslderation Cordiall.y, r; Tom Wrinkle TWrk �1 s a ` GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor CALI�ORNfA—TRAN5PORTATIO �.au(' I IRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION X 911, MARYSVILLE 95901 �� ✓f Telephone (,995901 A, 741 -1E277 bull„ Co. Planning Cnmm. April 4, '1984 �"fats 9 1984 OraVille, CslitolniA 03--But-99_ Lincoln Condoninims Mr. John Mendonsa Butte County Department of Public Vorks 7 County Center Drive oroville, CA 99965 Dear Mr. Mendonsa Thank you for the oppoz,tunity to review the Lincoln Development tentative condominium. subdivision map, which would create 60 residential units west of Ili&away 99 near Lessen Avenue. Caltrans is concerned when a noise -sensitive land use is proposed adjacent to a ,state highway, due to traffic -related noise impaots. Any desired sound attenuation measures, including sound walls; would be the responsibility of the project developer. However, if noise walla are planned, Caltrans would be interested :in reviewing the plans to insure consistency with existing State facilLties and standards. It is often: possible to design and place structures so that the right of gray fence con be removed for ease of maintenance in the State right of way. the you have, ally o telephone comments, please ootitaet Jeannie Baker at p 916) 74 -1 -4498 - Sincerely) QT. R. GRIM District Director of T.rarispOrtation + lail J. Smith chiefs tvirozirnerta Branch YESMAYBE NO 19. RECREATION. Will the proposal result in in impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. CULTURAL RESOURCES a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction: of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? I V, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is a subdivision/condo map for 60 units on 5.72 acres located on the south side of Lassen Avenue, west side of Highway 99 AP 44 83-04, north Chico.. Power and phone lin.ei exist to the boundary of the original parcel. Water would be provided by California Water Service Company, and selvage would be disposed of by individual septic systems; ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project, located near Chico city limits, is within the urban area. Soils on the site are Class I, Vina loam, capable of growing a wide variety of crops. The site is flat, with drainage towards ,Lassen Avenue; The only wildlife on the site are birds and domestic animals (dogs, cats). Vegetation on the site consists of mature walnut, almond and apricot trees, with a few oaks and some brush (plus some ornamental trees by the old resideico).. Air quality is declining locally due to the increases in traf-r-ic on local roadways: Single family residences exist to the west, condo's to tie south, with mobile home parks to the north and east (across freeway), as well as duplexes, Little open space exists in this area (mostly developed land). The General Plan designation is medium density, 7-15 dwellilzg units per acre. Thereare no points of archeological or historic significance in the immediate area, On April 17, 1978 the Advisory Agency afiproved a tentative subdivision map to create 12 lots on this property. At that tittle, the applicant intended to develop a :Ebur -plea on each lot or a total of 48 dwelling units. The proposed subdivision Inas originally' to create 14 lots; but it was revised to 12 lots in order to comply with the recommended density of the General; Plan (8 dwelling units per acre), This map will supercede the previous tentative map. 4Sri ' %J1 1"�w I. •. "p+`"�Y Jf.,,t , (4..; �.. y a'BS MAYBE N0 13. T NSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Will they proposal es0kt in: a. negation of substantial additional vehicle mov ment? - b. Effts on existlag parking fs,cilities, or deme,I.for new parking? C, Substastial impact on existing transportation systems d. Signif'i.c nt alte•rations to presen'L p2 rte'" of circulation or movement of people and// ` goods? e. Alterations `,to waterborne, rail or air, raffic`? f. Increase ir► ��`,r,af:fic hazards to mo/ve �eilcles l bicyclist s .or edestrians? , 14 PUBLIC SERVICES. IVi�1.1 the proposal � an effect upon, or result in a`'need for new off` altered governmental services,;, a. Fire protection? dr' b. police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreati al facilities? e. Maintenance of public r t0jities, includiasg roads? N E. Other governmental s'rvlc(-`7 S. ENbRGY . Will the pro, sal re— in : a. Use of substantial amounts uf,fuell.or eftergy? ✓" b. Substantial in tease in demand upon existing sources of ene gy, or require 49 development of new sourcps of enexgy? 16. UTILITIES. WivIl the propsal result iiia need .for l new systemsvor substa.nti,al alterations to the following:- a. Power Garr natural gas? b. Commui i.cations systems? c IVat,er„ d. 5��+er or septic tank? e. Slornt water drainage? f. olid waste and disposal's 1, . IJUMAN HEAI,T14j 1Vill the proposal result in; � �a. Creation of of an health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding meatal. health)? b. Exposure of people to potential. health � hazards? 18. AESTHETICS, IVi.11 the proposal result in the o`Gs ruc on of any scenic vista ar View Olsen to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive Site open, to public view? .�. .4- a 9 V. DISCUSSION 01 ENVIRONMENTAL );VALUATION CONTI:NUF,, lb: Disruptions, displacements, compaction, and overcovering of the existing soils will occur due to construction of 60 units or other uses allowed by the R-4 zone. The site covers 5.72 acres-, f the access road may cover about 3/4 acre. lht There are numerous earthquake faults in the Chico vicinity. Te site has a moderate liquefaction potential, with moderate expansive soil potential. 2a: Some increases in.pollutants will be noted in the vicinity due to vehicular traffic (up to 600 ADT per day)., The site is also in- fluenced by Highway 90 which is adjacent. i Sb: The site will continue to drain towards Lassen Avenue but an increase in surface water runoff will be noted due to the impermeable surfaces. This property lies within the Shasta Union Drainage Assessment District (SU.D.A.D.). 3ii Tfater will be obtained from the California Water Service Company (lines along Lassen Avenue). 4a: Some of the mature walnut and almond trees will be removed as a result of constructioft of ;facilities (the exact number is :not known; as many of the trees will be left as possible) 4d: The removal, of the walnut and almond trees will represent a, direct loss in a crop, although the trees are fairly old and not very productive. The exact number that will be removed is unknown. probably at least 1/4 of the trees on th^ 5.7 acre site will be lost. Sd; There are no ivi;Ldlife species dependent on this acreage for survival (some bird I'lle exists). An incremental loss of the orchard habitat would G. -cur. 6a: Noise levels will increase during construction plt.a.ses, and once the buildings are occUpj,ed. The site is located adjacent but below the grade o£ Highway 97, thus noise levels are quite high presently.and may require attenuation. The project will add ing developments. to the Overall noise of surround 7: Some increases in light and glare should be noticeable due to the buildings street lights, and, traffic, The site is surrounded by exte nsive developments. 8a,b.6 Present zoning is R-4 with a hind use of 7-13 dwelling/gross acre, (medium density including multiple family dweli.ings). So long as any uses allowed by the I1-4 zone complied witli the maximum density of 1.3 dwellings per acre, the project would confornt to the General Plan; The proposed 10 1/2 dwelling units per acre complies with those density limits . .6- V. DISCUSSION OF BVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CONTINUED Any of the land uses that would be established on the site would be affected by the frontage road planned along the eastern portion of the property and the freeway off -ramp on the north side of Lassen Avenu^ across from the project site. Refer to item 13c,rd. 11 There will be additional families added to the area: The area has many mobile home parks and multiple family dwellings, with a high population density. This project will add to this density ratio. 13a: When all the property is developed, traffic on Lassen Avenue can be expected to increase by up to 600 vehicles per day. Traffic counts are presently 9520 ADT at the 'Esplanade intersection to the west, and 3920 ADT at Coahsset Road to the east, and anticipated to be 10,800 and 12,200 by the year 2000 13c,d: Additional vehicles will have an impact on Lassen Avenue, with increased traffic noticeably, (;specially at the entrance to the development. Traffic is quite heavy on Lassen Avenue during peak hours. The Butte County Public Works Department) in cooperation with Caltrans, is planning to develop a frontage rood in this area, :From Lassen Avenue to East Avenue. If this parcel is developed, Public Works will require that the necessary property dedication and road improvements be made. This project would involve the construction of an on ramp and an off ramp on the north side of Lassen Avenue to Highway 99, the construction of frontage roads along the east and, west sides of I•Iighway 99 from Lassen Avenue to East Avenue subsequen to acquiring 'rights-of-way, and the deletion of the freeway on andoff ramps on the north side of the East Avenue froeway interchange. No date has been set to begin the project.. 13ft The increased number of vehicles in the area will result in possible increase in traffic accidents. An elementavy_school - is located south of the proposed project, and children frequent the area.. 14a: The North Chico Vire Station on Cohasset Road is the nearest fire protection facility. 14c Chico Unified School District has noticed Butte County that con- tinued approval of residential projects within the district constitutes a serious cumulative impact. Without a funding mechanism established to offset this impact, C,E6Q.A. requires an E.I.R. be prepared: 15a, Up to 60 additional residences or other such facilities can be considered a substantial use of riser y ("gas/electricity), PG&E is not deifying service at this timo, and tiiey do not coy. ;.dc' thln n;` IQct a substantial use of existing supplies (no interruptions 'to other customers will, result) 16; Power will be provided by PC E. power and phone :lines exist to the boundary of the original parcel.. Water will be provided by California Water Service Company: S.U.D.A.D. facilities will handle stormwater drainage. .:7- V: DISCUSSION Or 7NVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION CONTINUED 16d:i The property is either immediately adjacent to pr 'within those areas identified by Water Quality Control as having nitrate con tamnation of aground water. Septic tanks are identified as prime contributers of nitrates.. Pending comments from Environmental Health and Water Quality Control, sewers may be required. IIc; Cumulative impacts include traffic generation and addition of 25 students: y84 - .