Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-42 EIR, MAPS, MISC 2 OF 4r t use the area; breeding populations of birds would probably be smaller. There are probably no endangered vertebrates it, the area; this is not suitable habitat for Bold Eagles, for instance. No fish inhabit the arra: A list of vertebrates most likely to inhabit the area follows. Those marked by an asterisk were elctually observed during the field studies, �ahIblans California Newt (TarIcha torosa) .a - Ensatina (En5;atina sp.') �. California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuates) Western Toad (Bufo boreus) Pacific Treefrog (Hyla re` giila) Rept( I es 'Western Fence Lizard (Sceio orus occidentalls) Gilbert Skink (Eumeces gilberti) Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus sp6) Garter Shako (Thamnophis sp.) Gopher Shake (Pituophis eatenifer') Common Kingsnake (Lampropeit,is gofujut) Wi Rattlesnake (Crotalis,virldis) C I rd;5 *Turkey Vulture (Cathari-es aura) Osprey (Pandicn haflaetus) "Sharp-skinned Hawk (Acclpitel- stratus) Cooperts Hawk (Accipitercooperil) Red-shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus) *Red-tailed Hawk (Butes jamsicensis) Mm6 Kestrel (raico _8earyerius) Reregrihe Falcon (Falco peregrihus) ar- Callforhla Quail (Lophortyx californicus) Common Turkey Qeleagrls, gal loPa oy i Birds (Continued); *gand-tailed Pigeon (Calumba fasciata) *Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Screech Owl ('Otos asio) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginlanus) Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) Anna's Hummingbird (Ca) to anna) *Common Flicker (Colaptes aurafus) Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varlus) Hairy Woodpecker (Dehdrocopos villosus) Downy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos ubescens) Nutfall's Woodpecker (Picoides nutta.11il) Lewis' Woodpecker (Melanerpes Lewis) Ash-throated rlaycafcher (Myiarchus cinerascehs) Olive-sided Flycatcher (Nuttallornis borealis) *Western Wood Pewee (Con us sord l du l us ) Western Flaycafchor (Empldonax diff�___,_ic1IIS) Tme Swallow (Irido_proche bbi�or) *Common Crow (Coi,yus brachyrhynchos) *Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma cosruiescens) *Stet lerI8 ,lay (Sya)iocifta stet lerl ) *Plain Titmouse;(Parus Inornatus) e*Cushtit (Psaltriparus minimus) *Wrentit (Chamea fasclata) White-breasted Nuthatch (Sifta carollnensis) Brown Creeper (Certhia famlli'arls) *Bewlcki Wren (Thr _ommanes beWickil House Wre : (Trogicd)ibs ,aedon) r Birds (Con i� n__„u_�.' r re California Thrasher (Toxon ma diur'� Mockingbirds (f imus poiY�lottos *Am. Robin (Tardus migratorius) rVaried Thrush Qxorus naevius) *Hermit Thrush (Catha^rusu�. ata) Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Re us cafe Cedar Waxwing (Bomby itis ced. rorum) 1 yellow-rumpted Warbler (Dend� a coronata) *Brewer's Blackbird (Kha us cYanocephatu *Western Meadowlark (Stur�ila ne tecta) Black-headed Grosbeak (_hews me I ar��na��) *Rufous-;sided Towhee ( p—i to erYthrophth,al�nus) *Lark Sparrow (Chon�es grairtimacus) rChipping Sparrow CSpil �a �asse..�. rim) $Ong Sparrow (Malas iza mel_ odia) p onotrichia Ieuco hr s) �White�Crowned Sparrow ( Z Golden-Crowned Sparrow (Zono_ ghla atricaplla) r Dark-eyed Junco (Junco `aikeh) 1 [Vening Grosbeak (Hespertphgna vesper Ina) *House r inch (Carp____ cdy S mexr c--- anus) r*American Goldfinch (Card___u_ells tr stis) WLes5er Goldfinch (Card__elis aq.LtrIal r Mammals r5hrdw (Sorex s�? • 5 Cats (M,�oP.' rplaek( lod Jackrabbit (Le us caiifornlcu8) Coi•tontail Rabbit Csyiivilagus auduy l 4erush rabbit (SYban.— h- m�. tit i- Mammals (Continued)r CA Ground Squirrel (Citellus beecheyi) —y *CA Gray Squirrel (Sciurus griseus) White-footed Mice (Peromyscus sp.,) Wood Rat (Neotoma fuscipes) Meadow Mice (M"icrotus sp. Coyote (Canis latrans) Gray cox (Uon c nereoar enteus) Black Bear (Ursus americanus) Ring -tail (Bassariscus astutus) ' Spotted Skunk (apiiogale utorius) *Striped Skunk (Me hi;tis me hitis) *Pocket Gopher (Thoymomys So.) Mountain Lion (Felis concolor) Bobcat (Lynx rufus) ' *Mule deer (Odocoileus hemi) Sug eg sted Miti°gation Measures There are a number of measures that can be taken to treduce the by the propsed doveiopmenf4 impact on wildlife 1. Stands of trees and shrubs should be left - undisturbed wherever possible since they provide the greatest degree of wildlife habitat. On the west side of Route 32 untouched, if Possible. � Y developed should be left the fairly level forested area that could cohceivabl be p If not then development should occur with removal of the fewest number of trees. Besides providing wildlife habitat, trees buffer the effects of the climate, stabilize the solli and "retain moisture -,all beneficial to human Inhabitants of the area. Trees and shrubs heal~ tho ht hwa are y p g y particular) lm octant in stabilizing the soil ' and attenuating the traffic noise -beneficial to both people and wildllfoi Trees and shrubs lining the ridge of the canyons on both east and west sides should also remain to help prevent erosion: 2. The Intermittent stream coursing through the grassland should be maintained in some way as it seems to be an important source of tater for wildlife, "5 REFERENCES Flair;, WF. et. al. 1957. Vertebrates of the United States. McGraw H I I I Book Go. N.Y. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals, Houghton" Mifflin Co. Boston Holt, V. 1962. Keys for the Identificaton of Wild lPresso Borns, T ees,S rub5f and Woody Vines of Northern Ifornla. Ingl;es, L. 1954. Mammals of California. Stanford University Press. Manolin, T. and B. Webb.- 1979. A-Checklist of Butte CO. Birds. Altaca'l Audubon Soclety, Chico, CA. Martin, A.C., H.S. Zim, and A.`L. Nelson. 1951. American Wildlife and Plants.: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. Dover Publications, N.Y. Palmer, E.L. and H.S. Fowler. 1975. Fieldbook of 'Natural History. McCraw-Hill rBook Co., N.Y. Robbins, et. al. 1968. Birds of North America. Golden Press, New York. Small, A. 1074. Birds of California. Winchester Press, New York. Stobbins, Li 1958. A Field Guide to the Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton- ' Mifflin Publishers, Boston. Storer, T.I. and R.L. 'Usinger. 190, Sierra Nevada Natural History. Univ. of �` Cal'iforn'ia Press, Berkeley. 1 i Dear Dr. Beck, At your request on October 17 & 20, 1.980 1 conducted an archaeological reconnaissance ofapproximately 225 acres of land owned by Ray E. Johnson, et al. The property is located along both sides of Highway 32, approximately 2 males south of Forest Ranch and. is a portion of the W2 of Section 18, T. 23 N., R. 2 E., Paradise Quadrangle, 15' series. The pdroposed project for the property is for housing cluster development . The property lies along the east side of the ridge between Big Chico Creek and Little Chico Creek. The western portion of the property is along the top of the ridge and the terrain is relatively level with a low hill in the northwest corner. The eastern portion of the property covers the steep canyon wall along the west side of Little Chico Crook. The vegetation of the property consists of oak, pine, manzanita cru gall an annul grsses. Alar �en meadow is Hca_e in t o sou w s ern portion e propperty and a small spring is located. on the propertyalong Ehe upper edge of the canyon, Prior to my reconnaissance of the property l consulted the archaeological yite • record files ine if any archaeologicalCalifornia State IJniversit Chico todetermine at sites had been,preViously recorded.for the ,pro er�ty area arc is o�og1ca� ore91e er ca nsi es ipaAeen°rRggrdre°dorft or adjacent to the property boundaries. My reconnaissance of the property was complete in that all areas of the property that appeared likely to contain slater' al.8. of archaeological or historical significance were carefully examined. The main focus of my reconnaissance was the area of the property on the upper portion of the ridge since the property area along the canyon wall was steep and covered by. dense vegetation and unsuitable for human habitation. Two sites were recorded during my inspection of the propert one is a prehistoric site consisting of two small bedrock mortars, and the other is an historic site consisting of the foundation and associated features of Fourteen Mile Muse, Page October 27, 1980 The Prehistoric and only known .site is significa,,t in that this ridge. Prehistoric site recorded it is the first $i Chico g Prehistoric sites have along the top of Big and Little Chico Creek Canyons, recorded only evidence identified anyons, but this in both also occupied the so far that the zs is the meters ridge to aboriginal .to the south of a sP The site is located twenty People attraction twenty themthe mQ or for these People. and this was undoubtedly selves are very small .people. The mortars amount of activity and znda tate holes mapped and: Y took place at the that Only mit.' recorded Burin site. The a limited 'kation measures are during reconnaissance andsnte was required for this site. no further The U.S. G.S. shows the topographic ma test • location of Fourteenor t}ie area prepared. Since de of Humboldt Mile House in the phis ma Road, .just off as being on the which does p has been prepared of the Property wh,not follow the Highway �? has Y area 32 alsaccording �O the map the alignment of Humboldt been constructed, Mir inspection site would be to the Weoado taut site of F°urteen Mile of the r M� of Highway topographic House property d term nes,} that the the e map is in error as it, �7n the U ast of both Humboldt and that it Was � `"• 0' S; supporting Road lc�tet to actual this conclusion ° and Highway "� stone f1eld inspection omes Y 3�, Svidence Foundation which resultmdtwo .Fuxaroe, the such structure on the property5 ;n`inr}in; a large topographic re had ever existedarea axzd shcs 4 $ informant P' and from at the d that no at location shown who remembered obtained n On, the when t from on ?wring my ink eco' he structure cal interview inspection of the was sti,l intact; Mr; Property the 01aud L. Wi1'1is y r'was able to brieflv. property Mz,, Wialis , who was drillin the area a has been a ton g a well on Project bour�d0 S the Property adjacent to time res. °f east informed o the dent Hous -00- R'1ghway, 32 was fie that the northern Accordin indeed the site stone foundation in the g to ,Wr. Willis 800s as a the b of Mile The first toll wagon stop b uilding was constructed the road at th.gate along the made Humboldt Road Com uP the"°ad because Point bud; �, was originall :Pany, toll Se of a bypass later moved a Y across gate, remembers the road short dist t. gh surrounds st ad cons`trU? ted once He re that the d by a Wide ruetUre as bein around the the lowerbuilr3 ng hada Porch around the e two stories level shallow basement. lower 1elrel and also remembers twosbuild y twelve :feete barn and a ppr�1matex Ceiling of house slaughterhouse th assoc1ated with the high. He Where Mr, W` , that Dose, a structures were destros attends as later used school, as a school- fed when Highw�a.. Doth of these Y 32 was constrUeted, A -man Spires the house to Ernie Lucas -the 18906, named sold in, and. Mr. Lucas lived at the site until the 194os-when the structure was destroyed by a fire. Water for the house was obtained from the spring, approximately 450 meters north of the house foundation. The spring Was improvedwith a cement basin and Water was carried to the house through a pipelinei most of which is still visible at the site. The dump for the site is located almost due east of the foundation along the side of the canyon, which is extremely steep at this point. Cans, glass fragments, ceramic fragments and various pieoes of metal wove found to be scattered down the side of the canyon in this area. Mro Willis remembers that the meadow surrounding the foundation was planted in various grain crops and a number of fruit trees are still located around the meadow. Three cement tubs were found :adjacent -to the foundation and Mr. Willis thinks they were originally from the slaughter - in house$ he does remember that they were later used as septic tanks for a toilet added to the house on the porch. Most of the material identified at the site appears to date to the later occupation of the site, although a few square nails and glass fragments pre -date 1900. Since the structure was totally consumed by fire and all of the trash was deposited over the edge of the cliff it is unlikely that the site contains much potential for yielding additional data about the site or its occupation even if it was scientifically examined by a qualified archaeologist. I was only able to interview Mr: Willis for a brief period, but it was quite obvious that he has a wealth of knowledge about this site and the local area and he should be more thoroughly interviewed in the near future. �) Ono other feature associated with the site Was found along the west side of Highway 32, this was a short section of wagon ruts worn into the hard matrix of the Volcanic mud - flow. These ruts represent the original course of the Humboldt Road, which was mostly 'destroyed when Humboldt Road was paved. Similar ruts can be seen along Humboldt Road south of the point where it intersects with Highway 32i Since there is very little potential for gaining additonal 'I historical data from the materials at this site, Preservation and protection of the site area is not -required for the Mitigation Of the site. it is recommended that 311 possible the disturbance of the house foundation be avoided during October 27► 1980 Page 4 development of the area. It is recommended that the site area be mapped and photographed so that all the details of the site are preserved. by a qualified archaeologist, This data would 'then be kept on file at California State University, Chico for future reference. The site does have potential for interest to visitors and residents of the Local area and this would be a good location for a historical marker that would note the historical features of this location. An application for such a marker would have to be submitted to the County Board of Supervisors and upon their approval submitted to the State Historical. Resources Commission. It is therefore recommended that prior to granting archaeological clearance for the project area the features associated with Fourteen Mile mouse be accurately mapped and photographed by a qualified archaeologist and that an attempt should be made to designated the site as a "California Point of Historical Interest". In addition, although it is not a required mitigation measure the foundation of Fourteen Mile House should be preserved and protected if at all possible. ainoeroly yours, James P. Manning 1. Archaeology Consultant .-59- APPENDIX 7 INITIAL STUDY . ENVIR01�TMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM (To be completed by bead Agency) 82-42 I, BACKGROUND ,1'oEa # 81.-:1.0-14-0- �1AP 11 6'5-01-02 (ptn) I. Name of Proponent Ray E. Johnson, Jx-. 2. Address and Phone Num 14 Mile House', Inc. er of Proponent : l.7evcar Inc. Ro.118, Anderson and Rolls • Ut DQX ZIUD sirStTeF W-11CO. CA 5927 Chca CA95-926 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 1 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable ozone Tentative Subdivision o - an Ma II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers on attached sheets.) are required XES Mf1YI3}, N0 I. Earth, Will the proposal result in significant.- ignificant.a. I a.Unstable earth conditions or in cha0ges ;in geologic substructures?' b. Disruptions, displacements, com-- paction or overcoverIng of the soil? AML c. Change in topography or ground sures face relief features or removal of topsoil? d. Destruction" covering or modif ca- tion of any unique geologic or Physical features? e. Increase in wind or'' .rater- erosa.on Of soils, either on or off the site? ' f. Changes in deposition or erosion of bcau:th sands, or changes in silta- tion, leposition or erosion which may modify the channel of 1 river or stream or the bed of the- ocean or any bay, inlet or laltoj loss g. of prime agricultur;�lly pro- ductive soils outside designated urban areas? _._ -50- Appendix .r, � page 1 o;f YES MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to , gcologi.c hazards such as earthquakes, landslides; mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal, result in a. Substantial deterioration of ambient or local air quality? 1 b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? c. Significant alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature; or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? , �� 3: Crater. Will the pro-posal result in substantial a, Changes in currents, or the course r,Vrh or direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption nates; drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of skxrfaee water runoff? for off-site surface drainage . avements, including vegetation r =al, channelization or culvert i' fat J.1ation? a. ati.ons to the course or flow 1 flood waters? e. C, rge in the amount of surface ' water in any waiver 'body? f4 DI.scharge into sup: a.;:.e. w-Aters , 0J.- rih inany alteration of surface water quality, including but not Limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? g. Alteration of the d%reotion or rata of flow of ground waters`? h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground water's, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer bit cuts or excavations? ' Appendix 7! - pago 2 of 9 YI.S MAYBE NO Reduction in Ole, amount of water ot'lerwi,se , available for public water SUPT"lies 7 i 7 1 .EKposure 6 people or property to water related hazarcjs flooding? such as rte, 4. Plant :- ------ ll the proposal. result substancai �. Loss of vugetat:i:on Or ane the diversity Of specie orhnumbern cf a;ny species of p:tars (including trees, shrubs , grass c- ► sops, microflora and aquatic plants) ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, i'8rq or endangered species Of plants? a s C. Introduction Of rew species of plants into an area, o,.. in a barrier to the normal repl.enishitient of existing species? d : Reduction in--- acreage of any agri_ culturai crop?.. ." 5. Animal Life, T.1 ill the, propria]. result sin ubstantial,. a, Change in the diversity of 51)ecies_, 01' numbers of any species of animals (birds, land aa'mals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, Microfauna) insects or }y. Reduction of the numbers Of G any que, rare or endangered species Of animals? Introduction Of new species of animals into an t0*0 a barrier to the 111,9X" � ioneorlt in movement Of ah. .mals!' d-, Reduct �rn of, encroachment klpot , or deterioration to existing fibt�a cox Wildlife habi.tat`? 1ipend i a- r - page of 9 I YES MAYBE, - NC G. Noise. Will the proposal result in substantial; a. Increases in noise levels? Msv: r,A b E:-�posure of people to severe noise levels?, 7. Light and Glare, %ill the proposal. Produce significant light � or glare? 3. Lance. Will the proposal result in a significant., a. Alteration of the planned land use of an area, or establish a trend which will demonstrably lead: to such alteration? b. Conflict t4ith uses on adjoining properties, or conflict with ostproperties, _had recreational, educa- tional, religious or scientific uses of an area? . 9, Natural Ttesources . Will the proposal result i:n substantial.! a. Demand for, or increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any nonrenewable natural. resources? 10, Risk.of Upset. Does the proposal; involve a risk of an explo,r`i.on or the release of hazardous substances (it.'luding, but not limited to, oil, .: pesticides, chemicals or radiation) inthe event of an accident or upset coriditions? ll p.-° , 5ion , Will the propos al signi{ !.cantly alter the lotati,on, distribution, density, or growth i.'ate of the Duman population of an area or physically divide an established community?,,.r 12, llousin�, tgill the proposal s i ,n�cantly affect existing housing; or create ate a demand for additional housing? , -53;- Appendix T page. 4 of 9 YES 13,. Trans ortation/'Gireulation. MAYBE.` �p Wili the pr resin in;'_' a. Ccneration of substantial additic),jal vehicular ` movement? >i b = jignificaht effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation sys toms ?'`"j d. Significant alterations to patterns of circulation or presontmovement or people and/or j good,, e. Alterations to � air traffic? "'akerhorne, rail or �r f. Increase in traffic hazards. --___ to motor. vehicles, bicyclists Or pedestrians? lit; Public Services, Uill the proposal have an et -ect 'upon, or' result in a substantial need for new or, altered governmental' services inanof the following areast a: Fire protection? �y b. Police protection? `— c• Schools? i d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e: Maintenance of public facilities; including toads"c Other governmental vernmental services? , 15. gin. ear , Uill the proposal result in 6, Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 4� Appendix F page 5 of 9 IF YES MAYBE NO 16. utilities. Will the proposal result na need for new systems, or sub- stantial alterations to the following utilities: C",,,y a. Power or natural gas b. Communications systems? c. Watery' d: Sewer '(will trunk 'line be extended, parity to serve Hera development)? e. Storm :water drainage? 17. Human"I-Iealth. Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding ,. i mental health),? b; Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18i Soli.d-Waste Will the proposal. result ; in an signifi,cant im acts associated with solid waste disoosal or litter : control? 19. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the oobstruction of any public designated or recognized scenic vista open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 20. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or '! quantity of existing public recrea- tion facilities? 21, Archeol.o-ical/ais.t:otica1, Will the proposal :esu t in an alteration of a significant archeological or historical site, structure,, object or building? .... , -65- A. pp wa d 31A,t V- page 6 of 9' XCS MAYBE NO itandatorY F�nclnas o Sn�Cancp• i r cs t�o ect have the potential Does of theF DDorace s the quality to cles;, .substanti-ally reduce ' environment, L'nC. habitat of a fish or wi lcil i.fe fe species, cause a fish or wil.dli drop below self population to sustaining levels , threaten to com- eliminate a plantor animal the number or restrict munity, reduce the range of a rare or endang, important.� ' plant or animal or eliminate ` or eriods of e�;aaiples of the mai Pllistory or p L.e California history b, Does the -project have the potentia benefits to to achieve short term of publicly adopted 4 the detriment ---. environmental goals? l g� erm long-term o c. Does the project have impacts which J limited, but individually nd.i.vi.dua.11y a project C cumulatively considerable? two or more -soP rate may impact on mp resources where the iact on each itsmall, but resource relatively of where the effect of the total n the environment is those impacts on f si�tlifi,cant d. Does the project have environmental subStant a� effects which will cause human beVv9s, adverse effects on either directly or inditectlY? 1 ■ e 7 Appendi�c r - p of .. _ e e t III, DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION '111e proposed project is a tentative subdivision tntip and rezone request for a planned development of 21 single f iq►i ly lots- 'rile 186 + acne project site is 'located on the eastern side of Iligl7raay 32 about 2 miles sough of Forest Ranch and is fi portion of the tiV h of Section l8,T';32N ,R.2B., M.D.B.p4. The site is identifi.ed ortia as a a i n of Assessor's Parcel 63-01.02. vic project site j.ry bounded on the west by Highway 32. little Chico Greek, aPpl otini�itely 12 o(10 feet to the east, runs along the eastern boundary. (Sec Taihiire l.� The Butte County General. Ilan designations for tiie project site are Crazing and Open. Land (minimum 40 acre -.s per D/U) and ,kgricul tural -Residential. (minimum one acre per D/U) . The, developers Ray Johnson; Jr,.. , has proposed that tilt parcel be rezoned from TNI -40 (153 4- acres) and 'D1.5 (33 + acres) to Plannod Area Cluste (PA -C) An exclusive development of custom-built homes is planned. T11 proponent will develop 21 non-contiguous lots i.n an area of 10.4 p + acre lots w'.11 be sold to individual buyers. 0cres . Thebe 0,35 (See ri.gure 2.) Lot 22 (11, acres) will remain as undeveloped po,,..t+ure land. The remaining 165.2 acres will be Left as common ark,ri and will include a swimming pool, bathhouse, pedestrian path ar, , it►an ,,torage facility. Also fnclucled in this acreage are the sj,ot.'p cart;cin walls of Little Chico Creek which will be left as open spac., 1;►^ 49.4 acres shown on t-h�j Site Plan (Figure 2) are not a par-, . of t,lls project although 9 lots may be developed Una" rise current: TM 7.'A ng ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Develop►iient will take place on. the top of the ridgo between B21,9 and Little Chico Creeks. Elevations range from 1,950 feet ,nt the southern part of the site to 2,1.00 feet in. the northern portion Slopes 'range from nearly leve. in the open, grass area southeast of the highway to nearly vertical canyon t4alls. The project site is underlain by 'volcianic mud flows of t,ltio 'fu`�c�►n formation: Soils belong to the Toomes-pentz agsociatlon. ; uiSl";ic� soil averages 1-1h feet deeps with a subsoil. of 1-5 17ect. BoI0to this Is 1-6 feet of weathered mudf1OW rock of late 'permecili l ' ty Cly content varies from sparse to abundant. l�i:ttic Ci�ico Creek flogs through the southeastern poy°tio�� e� the site, but is not within the area proposed for de\1elopment. A spring and several ephemeral streams trave145e the site' Appendix F - page 8 of It�" '" �'�' _ •1 "s"' � � I,1 � t �, Y • • f'ureat, itJinch �- ,� .r• . i( �r� �;aN(iA A +, v. i Y " t' N N:r to �h. 1 It cool ! d i.��.� �. +`• .':�: + PROJECT SITE. }DOtoo It �,,•`• to ,� �jG, ." '" 1 1 1 v .? ° �ffi :iso r••• • 1 a � i ' �� � 1� a R r� ''`'� t1 l,••• '�, ''•J•Tj : / •. .. r I 11' I'1 yl r ' ':7 t�i �• fir: t j r �,� a 1it w 1�i.rA rV 1r..�.� { 17.+x aa% j `� � (•`: I•..^? t rfr ,� '"`j � 1 ,�, '� , j I� p q ,' u� 'll l 1 • f ' ,�,� fj•• • I �Y � _ ..y �fi +•r' .�. .t iy'�. �— �, 1 j•- r•..."-" y.t _. t r { S— ,,,,, . (((/// i to 40, It + �• I / � i' +� lel. t,:l •�. I �M�4�! � ' �.1..�� . , w +, FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY J , Y il,,+ �,✓� 1 � • Y � Ii Ir JU QQoaoo FERN cm.0 68— cr :.fitr w U ?�', 04 LU .� cc Q X69 0 i 0 The Tuscan Formation typically yields low flows of water, favorable locations for wells are erratic and difficult to predict. An on-site well located at the north end of the meadow east c;E Highway 32 yields about 30 gallons per minute. No long-term temperature data, are WVU ilable for the p-r(l) " jest area, but conditions are similar to those, in the Sacramento Valley, In Chico, the mean monthly high for July is 97''OF, with summertime temperatures above 10.00F being common. The mean monthly low :dor January is 360F, but -temperatures in the twenties are not uncommonPrecipitation at the project site averages g e bout 50 inches of rain per year. Light snowfalls occur ravely,.and melt rapidly. Air quality in Butte County is relatively goad, but national air quality standards for oxidants (smog), carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates are occasionally ex- seeded at some locations. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) and UiS. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have designated Butte County as a nonattainment area for these pollutants. The project site lies within a transition zone between Yellow Pine Forest and Chaparral habitats and contains ele- ments of both. Some major species of Yellow Pine Forest such as sugar pine, incense cedar and white :Piz• are absent. Other species such as yellow pine and California black oak are wide- spread. Manzanita and wild lilac are also found throughout the site. Herbaceous species include several grasses, hedge parsley, woolly sunflower, coyote mint, skullcap, hedge nettle and othors4 The chaparral habitat intergY:ades with the Yellow Pine Forest habitat and occupies a considerable area near the edge of the steep canyon walls. Typical species include buck - brush, toyon scrub oak, manzanita, buckthorn a,n�J poison oak. Herbaceous species include rattlesnake weed, Hooker's plan- tain, smooth cat's ear, wild iris and western morning glory: A small, area of riparian -habitat occurs In the vicinity , of the spring in the northern portion of, the site and somewhat along the Larger ephemeral streams. Vegetation in these areas is primarily herbaceous, including beardgz:ass, hprseweed, cat- tails and monkey flowers. Several introduced species are located near the Fourteen mile House site. These include Japanese quince bushes, peach tre .s, black loctistd and black walnuts, Star thistle covers the two large open areas on both sides of the highway. A rare plant survey of the site was eonditcted in October ;1080. Two saiall populations of Bidwell's hnotWeed (Polygohum bidwelliae) occur on Lot 22, ,just east of an existing fence and about 600 feet north of the southwest corner of the property, This species is currently recognized as "rare but not endangered Butte fritillaria (Friti.11aria ea:stwoodiae), Apt e dix r _ page 8a or 0 _7p- another species in the same category, has been previously reported at a site about four miles east-southeast of this property. No remnants of the previous seas,onis growth of this plant were ob- served during the survey, and it is presumed not to be present. 1. Unne) a third species Brewer's rocket (Arabis brewer' var. aus in the same category, has been reported from rock faces several' miles to the south of this property. It was not observed on this site but even if any may have gone undetected, no construc- tion is planned on the rock faces. Robust checker mallow (S,Walcea robusta) Is officially recognized as "rare and en- dangeredll and has been reported within a few miles of this site. Although a related species of Sidalcea occurs near the spring, no remnants of robust checker mallow itself were observed during the survey. The vegetation on the site provides excellent habitat for many, large and sma ' 11 species of wildlife, including deer, bob- cat, skunk, rabbit, squirrel and mice. Many species of birds inhabit the 8,34.te including quail, meadowlarks, thrushes, spar- rows) jays, woodpeckers and mourning doves. No taro or en- dangered animal species are known to inhabit or depend on the project site. The site is currently vacant. Surrounding lands are also vacant except for a single house located just north of the pro- ject site. A 20 foot encroachment upon Highway 32 currently provides access to the site. This access is to be abandoned, and re- placed by a 60 foot encroachment located about 100 feet to the north. An encroachment permit from Caltrans will be re- quired for this actioni internal access will be provided by oiled, gravel -based private roadways. The California Department of Forestry, in tooperatiot with the Butte County Fire Department Is responsible lot lire protection. Response time for the volunteer station in Forest Ranch is estimated to be 5-10 minutes. Back-up units Would respond from Chico. The Butte Couhty Sheriff's Department is responsible for Jeltithe law enforcement it the area. Response would be about 1-0 minutes, depending upon the :Location of the patrol vehicle. Students living in the 'development Would attend Chico Senior High School, Chico Junior High School and Parkview Elementary School. School bus service is provided for junior and senior high-school students only. Sewage disposal will be provided by aseptic tank-commu- t pity leachfield system. JVastewator from the septic tanks will be collected by a small -diameter gravity sewer line and Pumped to the leaahtield.. Domestic water 'will be provided by a private community water system utilizing the existing well and an 8)000 gallon storage tahk4 A 20)000 gallon Swimming pool will provide additional water storage for fire suppression, The electrical and telephoto, lines which currently exist wost, of Highway 82 will need to be extended to the project site, 1-71" Appo))dixP -_Jingo, P11 of 0 1 s lb,cs Construction of access roads and i�rei� ir.atiion or hottsin� sites t.°i i !. result :in soave soil disp acement and clj.srt11:ttiott. linos alterations in topography and ground surCatG Features cvoulrl also Occur. le. Erosion hazard is rated by the Soil Conservation Service its "[Figh" on the Toomes-Pentz soils; Developmer�.t should take l;a e only on 'the lower slopes, thereby rel�icl.n� p Construction actavataes could cause accelerated to erosion, can be mitigated by avoiding steep cuts, replanting sollpod areas, providing perimeter berms during construction, and :lim tiftg construction to the dry season. 1}1 Evidence of expansive soils was seen in several of the pej colation test pits located in the southern portion of the site; however, no development is planned for this area. The largest earthquake recorded in the porest Ranch area resulted in a bedrock acceleration of 0.17 expected on the site is about 03 g'g. the maximum acceleration quakes such as liquefaction and lurrchiSecondary gco So l',e� ocllotolil:cl�i�to occur due to the characteristic of ons -site soils, potential oyrto make hazards ng11 be mitigated icy following the guidelines of the Uniform Building Code. 2a: Development of the project would result in a minor but incre-' mental increase in both stationary and 'mobile source air pollt,rtIon emissions. Stationary sources include dust from eonsir ictiot� and emissions from trash burSiers and fireplaces , from Co small ionvan.iel�ce stores are located in Forest Ranch, the nearest mtijor ret,,ii1 outlets are in Ghico. . If each dtivellang generated an average of two trips (one way) per day to Chico, total mileage traveled by all residents (roundtrips) would equal 1,176 males per tray. Total vehicle enlss*, prom this :increase in travel is not expected to seriously •induce a 10715 .r quality along the Highway 32 corridor, in the vicinity or project, and into the Chico urban area. tlic 3b: Development of theproject would lead to art increase 'rate and volume of on-site stormwater runoff, Thin the considered significant due to increase is not amount of impervious sur.facZng,. o 'paY�cel size and the relatively small 3C,e .f j As stOrmtvater runoff draiveways and rottcls t ns from drii carries sediments and other pollutants into receiving waters. Artei• development, runoff from the project site could contribute to the Pollution burden of Little Chico Creek. Erosion front storm tttnof> urban pollutantsintotLxttledralna9d rills that would transport unrittered Chiin La.ttle Chico Creek would marginallyeincreaaetotal volume o.0 water -72- Appendix p .. page 8, o.0 9 4a: Removal of vegetation would occur as a result of road con- struction and homesite preparation.. This impact should not be significant due to the small number of lots and extensive amount of open space. 4b TWO populations of the "rare but not endangered" Bi.dWell's knotweed (Polygonum bidwelliae) occur Lot on 22 Lot 22 is to remain as pasture land, which should partially reduce potential impacts on the plants. 4c: New species of plants would be introduced into the area as landscaping: Landscaping should utilize native as po_ssibl,e species as much 5a,'G,d.t Residential development would encroach upon existing Sabaand Y redu*-^ the wildlife carrying capacity may of the site. Speciesof irid;'t' presence, such as raccoons, skunks, rats, sparrows, and scrubjays,, MAY ;,r; -ease 1n number. The most sensi- tive wildlife area is an intura rilttpa,t stream which appears to be an important: Source of water for 'Y'111 S Stream, in Oegrassy portion of Lot 22, will remain as ;;•«ri —,-J. aped pasture land, Domestic dogs, if allowed to roam unattended, could. ,-T� t r• r� leo r a.nd other wildlife, Pets must be confined to homesite arenas unattended Proposed lots 16 through 21 may be adversely impacted by vehicular noise from 14i9h1V1y 32. The Safety Element in the County General: Plan notes that noise levels exceed the adopted CNhL of Ld11 60 d13 tvit} i.n 200 .fect of higlh speed highways: 8a,b: Currentl, y approximatel> 153 acres the project site are in GOL zoned Tl•} -40 And 35 acres in Agricuf ultur,�il -i7esa clential , zoned TM 5, :Cf land Were developed under these constraints, Jl 1 dwelling units could be constructed, with a density of l.8 cJ.cre. per L1/U. The altipl icaftt proposes to build 27. D/Us, re81,11titig in a density Of 9,6 acreser D U. p / This comparison is sontewla«t k mi s leading, since under a PA --C they would be required, to leave 80"6 (1.2.3 acres) of Cot a - open space. JJndcr a PA -C, 80% dedication of project land to open space would aPplY only to «areas located i.r tht, SQL General l'la;n designation, fn areas designated A }t i n the County (Jener'al Plan., the al loll z)l�lle density is otitic «acre per 1)/U (though any density under 20 ncros poi• NO Mist be conditionally approved), Provirlittg that a,J.1 crl tolwia. iot` devcloptllent are mot, t'ile appl iCI- nt COUI(I flJ('OJ"4`t i C JJ, ly (30V010 D/Us p «3 PA - Co .�i� � US til`e �;J1 dC1�•"C�CJ `1FJ�);� placed ' e } �l J n t'}t�' � (j} w l 7 ��Jatl • � arc�'a3 and a3 an the A -R sa.�;o 1�ttidj -1)licant' lies 1 )ao ; under Ar -R 1tYnci}l►c�rsedc�Gsign;ati6n nustnmoeteConditionalcl�xj �xlc,},mr.ftt. tiJJdcr ern s"age and slope constraints would also restrack site cieVC�1()11.r�Lnt,; Land on staraioyJnding prol)orties has not been devcioltrd, �Inci m'rilY as 1. and i. dout:xosis Canyon lands, succ ossrul buildoutthis _penOOth to of res' projectP y cJicotirageW other landowners in tltr a dential devc:lopmont of their prat"11111v -Y73- A�r�r+llr7i �' i+ 1 1 I, 1 6 would be Used Car consonrencwnt7lo let ion., the use o C n o rCit Lois AF ib ; Some natural esUt�on comp. Y attcl ril:t icance, op or, and residences • } l,�;sourcos 'For heating., •air, conditioning sustained love 1. the POP"' w0La d ocet►r Get a development s t en't co alcl a ,!onreaseincro,ISO� t full buildout, tha This rop 1.1 ; tYte area by 42- 63 persons l.tL'i.c�►r o significant, not con5i:dored to be slg ro ect, about, 210 veh°:- , tra,pff AS a result o thish ay7 3g' which has a c'Th�sn � Inc 13-11, AS la,c,108q Gaunt). per day could be added to Eley daY (• n 1evc1 and ca��acity aC volume of about 2,000 trips P of1L the highway would in - movements °n and in arez' trl.k�xC zna.ng�.l below the des,.�ge access road should be hr�4� Tu �, of acc�oents, According the hag�ossxbilit� rtss and egress• d in g' with crease the p as an T;xp'I essway�'' h�+tti2, desi,gnLd to pertn1t`aP categorized Flightvay 32 i s categ al sts Rot c that %lig Y Caltxans, access. Caltrans an Yis a hazardpFfi,cials hil;hly restricted and 1111lited sight distance, the because o C terrain )rofch i,ntLo oth°ill and mauntaa,n areas new acce soa lun' .'located op" road it the f a hwa 32 tihau7 d be t1 far• 'It Caltr�ttis have also advised that on the west Side Of the road project site on the east s�doitt on y Side e from the pr+°j an C -x sti.ng access p posite ,� Refer to attached Corresp Safety purposes C soon reach a l7istrict a o{fice of Caltrans.) will along Highr�ay Dot'— on fire station=will need to be 14 a : Gonti nUed development round managedan f und�i,ng the level reg1.liring a �', ment, persornnelcurrent-residents in exact location, enup artment, worked out between the Fax`e Dep area and developers, Tire SUPPressi,on will be prouswim -Pool. spe— Brant system gallon swimming A p the '20.,000 gallon p at ovnl of the Butte PT fixe-hY sitEt,cien`L coater, wi.'ll be obtainedfrom system musttmcnt o. `tiporestry • flCcttJ.Ons for the hydrant the cut=de-sacs. artmentXalif0% �ePthe end Of ario-half way down county T.lre Dep tended at ro;rimately area will be P a" }rtilg vehicles tuYy4 around assage o 1"i're� fighting include `burn-ULtf areas ,ill -oallow-foihpa pI� atection ,erv� ceS is and emit inti chat -road ro ram along roar ire �istarit building mrercxls and bli e aeons, to reducae aenedl reduction P g 1. the �mplementat d around houses and the use of fame re� 1,aTidscap ing iced on the Sheriff's nu ion: of the Forest Ranch area coitti�iues to 1, t As the populat secur i t5' additional demands r�3.,11 be plt}ie installation °f atrcn increase, am��lement' Alitigat�on measuresandcdeadbolt locks, rntr with pa`titmeAt= stems and controlling voi,icic �' devices such 5 alarms _c ,;,-iahborhood Watch^Programsp 1.4c, Adequate capacity is available at all schools to be attended by students l:i.v;ia1g in this development. As the pop- ulation along Highway 32 increases, an elementary school NIS route may be required. 15a,b The nearest concentration, of lar};e retail services is lowated in Chico, approximately 14 miles south of the project site. Commutation from the site by future residents represents a marginally greater increase in energy Consumption (l)rimarily 'vehi--lar :fuels) than would occur if the proposed project were l.oca :.ed within the urban area of Chico. l6e Refer to item 3c 1.7a: The area proposed for the community leaclifield is character- ized by fairly rapid percolation rates (4.0-6.5 minuteshlich) . Unless leachl.ines are properly designed and located in the deeper soils, effluent may not be adequately` filtered and could move ' laterally on the underlying rock formation, surfacing on the adjoining hillside. k oi' u,)knotvn in�the }small, esence ma mammal �opulationakes presen� incalrea-wide] risk f UI c I1 significance. Vaccinating petsagainstrabies and con4iningo than to residential areas would, reduce this potential hazard. Large populations of tree hole mosquIt-os may present a season4�l. nuisance to the residents. They also Nerve as carriOTS of canine hcertwo rm. 'rhe project is located within the Butte County Mosquito Abatement Di trice however, the homeowner's association may wish to supplement this control with a seasonal program of their own. 19i Construction of roads and houses would change the visu7l appearance and character of th,e site, The proposed setbacks, � architectural design, and landscaping should reduce this proper impact. Although the min -storage facility will be adjacent to ljighi�,ay 52 it will not be visible due to terrain. 216 One archaeological site consisting of two small, bedrock mortars was noted during a site 1,nspection. This site has been mapped and recorded, and no' further mitigation measures are required, ' An historic site consist .ng of the foundation and atsociatod features of fourteen, Mile 11ouse was also noted on the property, archaeologist r heat has since been destroyed. The ecomfl'OrA8 tan attempt. be made to designate the site as a "Ca'lifornia Point or I�Iisto-rical Interest" aril have a marker placed along IiighwaY 32 explaining the significance of the site, 22a t Refer to sections 1, 3, 4 22b Refer to discussion Of items 80 "d b, 22e* potential cumulative impacts o i.s project are rolatocl is '.loss increased traf "'i.c0 ' roared demand n,, public services and of vegetation and wildlife hab»itAt. ,' Appondix > page Sf of 9 r 1 1 Al nnir NO Pro ject Under the "No Project" its present state, Alternative, tttc s",_e z'ernain it IniP3ct5 related site`ivca�i7.d not occur. ted to human occtipLtion of face artcl increased eros -ion include �lisru the habitat, increased loss Of ve p`tiori Of g7'Ound stir demand For P traffic and traCtic-related Nand zards,ll�.ncr• wildfire hazaand rd�andeanimal �bor Possible eY[�asr.ire of creased cas�.zl Disadvanta ne diseases. people to identifiecic forr'th s alternativ"Virone. disadvantages Preclude development Of e� nenia:L of tile project cern be General Plan designation the site under the`ctirrenCo�eCt would not dlvelling units placed on' which would l.iel zoning and the proposed site, -y result in fewer Alternative 2 � Higher Densis Y Under this alternative op higher d derlsitY• maximum bt ildaut�in would be dca Plan designations tivould allow the constructionr curre a a all Other development criteria are sat: under current General o(' 37 l7/Us, px'a�ridnh Advanta es satisfied, - per capita cast for and at er axnprovements would be public seripices x'oarls on this s,i�te m3.ght reduce would be reduced. Similar areas. roads, > development pressures from Other units D"Sadvanta eS - Dnvironmental ate stance a impacts associated with ll.itm;itt 'nater dor t' e site would increase area will nQtea residences ommodate may - not be Prible. On"11,1 , feasible, '1'}re �' Pro i:n�r; h gh.er density; leachfield AIIPrEll t1Ve 3 Loiver lensit Und(r this zoned 1 Proposal the site would be developed as cu (T M-40 and Th -S). Approximately located: in the TM -40 zoine d33acres 1S3 acres currently A total a a,E the site are f 11 D%[Is could be built s In the area a county development criteria were 8' ng zanc.d TRt�S; roviding rtll Other state ilr�l mentAtl"ant�l1 potentia>l adverse impacts nncreaseY} traffic hazards to the natural services acid wildlife hazards, wancr.ased den►anrl fdr eriv%ron Project, be reduced in severity; 7d, compi,red, to ptiblic Ise proposed n. i.!1;l4nta yes - Un°bstruc ted scenic nualxtY, In UC sprawl development views would lac reduced Y �i . corr'dOr, impacts t,o theent o E Land Surrounding natural the environment and Appendi. 75�- Page 8g of 9 eALT14IRNATIVES TO THE PROI70SED PROJr'CT (continued) 'exposure of p persons to wildfires and traffic hazards would still occur if the site were developed. under exist],ng Goneral Flan designations and zones. Although less SCIvere than those that would potentially occur under the proposed project, several of these impacts would nonetheless require mitigation to reduce the impact to a level of insign.ific.rr)ce. t - Appendix l: - page 8h, of 9 SRM.-NA"'t' _ ON (To he r_On"C"leted by the Lead Agency) On basis of this initial ev aluation: C firli3 the proposed tfect on the envrnrojctCOULD NOT have `signifie, and aNcant- r6c6mmended. GATIVE DECLARATION C) I finrl that although the significant effect: on Proposed, the enviro project could have a !� a significant effect in this ase f mi,ti. � r here will. not �! gation measures described on an cause the have, been added to the attached sheet IS ' �;,>�l'MI ED. Pro ect. A NEGATIVE DECLhRATION ,F I find the proposed a significant effect on the environmenect MAY have nti 11EPORT is , and an ENVxRONMENTALIMPACT required. Date Det:amber 7, 1981 ` (Signature) ..�_ �V1l.i�m .R,. Sands Por: L e o u n ,. r " ning ep ". Reviewed by; ..��, � t e Yen A. Streeter *Dnviro,"'Men.tal Assessmen Of Eu tt p Fpared for the Count I.e by by: Eco -Analysts . y 114 West Seventh Avenue Chico, CA 95926 August 198 Revised by., Butte County planniin November/becember l9$partment APPehdi.X P - page, 9. Of 1 rv. Flaming SIAT> 'OF CALIFORNIA —TRANSPORTATION AGENCY NU G, BROWN JR., Ggvynor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISIR1CT 3 �fOV1�j0i CSG{Ofgi$ P O. 501 911, MAMYP IE 9590E k:talepiione (916) 674-4277 11 A C Novem'"er 13; 1951 03--11ut-32 PPI 22.4 111 -Mile House rutty comity Planning Commission 7 County Center Drive w Orovillo , CA 95905 Dear i"iembers of the Commission: '"thank you for the opportunity to revievi tate rozone applictltion v.thich would allow co.istructi.on of a 21 -unit c:ovel.ormlelit 'by the 14-+i41le House, Inc. The site is ori the c:a;t t ido OP .a 'i 32, south of Forest Ranch, Tne rroposed enlargement of an existin , 20 -fort road ��pproac'h Pox nen-Mile house Road and construction of a now 60 -Foot; ucces's oponint should be directly opposite each 'othor, rathor t1lall (0 .Feet apa st, for safety purposes. Otherwise the propooL,0 improvements should have no adverse t �affic inpacts The modification of any access in this area would recatire t;pprov�l by the California Transportation Cormission. The envi.rom,.ental docurmant should identify the impacts- of the v ark to be-perforrcd within the State rigst ht o' ay, suchas veetst,3 ori removal, el,d appropriate mitigation measures. The District would then ,ubm t t1're final environmental document with the a,,1,11cation for a lfuw access opening. :"iIlce rd ly , LLC J . ri`P.0,T)ATORR Ujist;ri.ctJ Director of Tran8portation I;y PREPARATION STAFF Albert J. Beck Principal Investigator Ken Jordan Environmental Abul.yst II Christine Sinnette Environmental Analyst IS Don Burp Environmental, Analyst I Jeff Harvey Roger Environmental. Analyst I Lederer Certified Ecologist, Grady G Philip Lydon California Registered Geologist #144 J.hes Atanning Archaeology Consultant Kingsley Stern Botanist -goy To Planning g Commissionersdor 1J6 � APPENDIX 3 / meeting 14 N"le House Rezort g 37_2 td Letter of 12/20/82 from E111 Dirpin to Al l fiscal impact analysis Beak reSa.rding, Fiscal Impact Analysis ' s Y i from Eco -Analysts Letter of 9/16/82 from Chico (No response) Unified School Disrrlct NIL" mo 'from Public Works 9 (No response)/2/8Z Letters from St -ate Agencies Responses to comments from State Agencies Nemo � ies .Front Environmental Health Letter to Angelo tr olpata 1017/82 from ERVironyjental Health 11/2/81 - .Dade &0,un>y LAND CSF NATURAL WEALTH AND BEAUTY PLANNING COMMISSION 7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVEOROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965 PNONFt 534.460 December 20, 1982 Al Beck Eco Analysts, Inc, 1:1.4 West 7th Ave, Chico, CA 95926 Dear Mr. Beck: ` I have reviewed your fiscal impact analysis prepared in connection with a draft environmental impact report for the 14 Mile House Rezone AP 63-01-024 1 agree wi tlr your basic approach, which is an attempt to considerably simplify the fiscal impact analysis for this relatively small project. [However, I: do feel that some important details have been left out in your analysis. The arithmetic indicates that in your :Five-year analysis period, some sort of phasing has been used in both the revenue and the costs impact analysis. It seems clear that in the revenue analysis A straight line approach to project, phasing has been used. However, the same method 01.ogy was riot used in the costs analysis. Because the method: olragy is not explained, it is impossible to determine whether this is merelyr an arithmetic error, or whether some other li;iddeti considerations are i11vo1%,ed. In addition to an apparent hl thodolog-y discrepancy, it seems some inpoxitant costs were left out. While I would agree that the county budget by major categoryy would n y : s of because of the size of the ro'ect a detailed analysis , of be appropriate even by your measure of what is significant, that is, an average per household cost of $51.54 would indicate that the followin specific Categories were significant from previous year's g budget, however, wale left out of this analysis; I. Public protection, otIler than police and fire. 2. Roads 3- Health and sanitation, COSts should be computed and included for these items, r 1s well as in the comparison Of revenues versus cost, aatd a brief 7 FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS' The following analysis is prepared at the request of the County Planning Department. rohe.method used,hod er Capitawith iIultiplier,* is the most pp P the small size of the project and absence of a detailed County- wide case study for use as a comparison baseline. Service tion collected by the County and casts are based on informa used in their analysis for Canyon Park. Estates. Adjustments have been made to reflect that the budgets expended are for service of residents in unincorporated areas Only. revenues, however, are Obtained on a County-wide basis, regardless of residence it an incoporated or unincorporated ares.: A reasonable construction schedule for this project is 10 homes in 5 years and full buildout on all 21 building sites in 10.12 years. A fiscal analyses was developed for the 10 homes in 5 year buildout, with the following assume- tions: 2.1 peroOns- per occupied household, a 1 year delay before the receipt of property tax revenues, and an assumed level of service of 9o% of the total effort for faze, 75ro for Sheriff's Department and 85% for General Services and selected judica al. The remainder of effort in each area is devoi,ed to non-residential protection or service, including he commer-- t ci al, industrial and agricultural uses in the County. Revenues The primary revenue source will be property axes. Property taxes axe collected in the next tai: period following construction. We assumed a 1 year lag in c011ection of taxes (4 years revenues by the fifth year.) An average value per completed home of $240,000 ($75/sq ft of house, 100,000 for land and improvements) would yield $541/hou8e/year for the Country General. Fund. At the end of the fifth year, the County would have collected $10,825 in property taxes. Sales tax revenues will be relatively manor because the con- centration of retail business is within incorporation arenas. Assuming that North Valley Plaza remains in the County, estimated sales tax revenue of $25--$30 per new household could be gained by the County or a total of $250-$350 per year or $1,250-$1,750 at the end, of 5 years, Miscellaneous revenues, including fines and in -lieu revenues from the State, would produce about $30 per capita or $70/househo'la or $1,400 at the end of 5 years, , Total revenues at the end of 5 years would be $131415- $130075, *2.1/person8/household esti Costs; Costs to the County for s.ervi.ces, begin with construction activities: Assuming that these funds, are only expended on residents of unincorporated areas and that these residents can successfully demand a return to 1981-82 service levels,' an annual average cost of $51.84 fox Fire Protection and $118 for Sheriff protection Per household would be increased. This would produce a 5 year total of $5,094.52. General. County Administrative and Judicial Services; are County --vide services with a combined cost of $88/household or a 5 year cost of $2,648. The total. for 5 years would be $7,742 in costs for this development. Revenues to Costs Minimum revenues at the end of 5 years are estimated at $13,475 and costs at 7.742 producing a net revenue to the County of $5,733. September 16, 1982 JJolui Mendonsa, Assistant director County of Butte, Dept. of Public Works 7 County Center Drive Qroville,; CA 95965 SUBJECT; B.T.It. oil 14 imil,; Mouse Subdivision Doar. Mr, Mondonsd At the September 15, 1982 meeting of the Boad of Cduca.tion, the Board reviewed the potential, impact of the 14 dile House Subdivision and its potential impaidt on student housing. The Board was presented with data indicating the number of students who would be generated by this subdivision and also data for other sub- divisions in this area which have previously been considered by the hoard. Ell,, closed with this letter is a copy of the data presented to the Board. You will note that in the case of they 14 utile House S' ,.' division that tato students generated from this subdivision, when combined with r,'-heT subdivisions in the area, would place Parkview hlementary School and Chito Junior High School 69 and 8 students beyond their respective capacities, Because of the potential impact on student housing, the board took it position that it is recommending the 14 Mile House Subdivision not be approved pending agreement between Butte County and the school dist:ri.ct on possible ways of fillanci.ng ,for the Housing of studett't:3 in this area. Sincerely, Robin C Thompson �,.. Business Hana.ger/Comptrollea RGT t vv cc w Robert Jeffries IA.el tye Kircher WOO Ca, Planning Amro. 8EP" 17 1982 Crov1164 Caltfornla APPENDIX 9 Inter De ark r � 00 eview To; Planning Department Environment=al�R F�RoM% Land Development Section - Public Works SUBJECT; 14 Mile House PA-C Rezone UATE: September 22 1982 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject PA-C and our only coomentlst haCalhe rrequirement quir mentfor ortation a public road approach, app, by Commission, should be mentioned in the sections dealing with access and traffic: Clay Castleberry Director of 'Public Work � J 1 in Mendonsa ssistant Director JM/ns �4�ta C d• Planning C SFp 2 t� " y at � s OFFICGOVERNOE R S OFFICE CiF PLANNING AND 14bo TENTH STREET RESEARCH EDMUND G. BROWN JR, SACRA GOVERNOR MENTO JSB 14 (916/445-0613) Dul�n ro nlanninq Goober 14, 1982 Uu1te Co. Planning Cenlm• C4.1, 1982 Butte A• Streeter OCT 1 a County Plannin 3 19UZ e, �aurornia CcMmissior! g Aroville, Laltfprnr`p 7 County Center Drive Oroviller CA 95965 SUBS; SC�1# 82083104 14 NZ HCUSE Dear Mr Streeter, PLANNED ,AREA CrETER ACNE State agencies 1f you wo comment stai:f uld like have to discussd on your draft environment person listed in the s t thefrec�endations a impact report The tallowin and concerns, contact�e)' E g is in summary. The department a aware of and grees that the .sever PI for appropriate al homes near Hi noise attenuat,ionghway 32 should be made Thegc7epart7tlent larger parcels ends consideration of an alternative propoa�entls Property an on down , propert pt for the 10+ zoning ofpan�ect utilizing of Ehe t acres of the housing luster. a , ou When preparing the final EIR, o (C'QA Ge'-delines, sectio , YOU must decision -m n 15.,6), include al. comments directly to the pr`'cess The cert:i fieri and res thea I comments Project d t:ionmuWe considered Cleari Clearinghouse gencies to ad you in the number on all comes Y writing to diem urgeo� to 1981 A pondence: r including th SresPond ate Ca1.A Appellate Court �Aecison in pp3d 348) clarified Z Specifically, reuxrenents for re�. t s (118 givingothe court: -Indicat ponding to reasons why ed that cormt�ents The responses should ld a specific c must be ad review comments. gaited indicate o'MMents and suggestions dressed in detail, the suggestions or c Y factors of overriding were not . not be conclus- lents ding si accepter tal data statements lout must be rejected. Responses Which re- scientific au�orit � supl�rtec� b ponces to c said that the responses must beoa Xplahatory info Y enplrlcal Orornments must: 5ood faith rmation. The court further Cher reasoned analysis, further 4. ~ Mr. Stephen A. Streeter 2 October 14, 1982 Section 15002 (f) of t41tt CBQA Guidelines, requires that a governmental agency take certain actions if an EyR shows substantial adverse envirormental impacts could result from a project. These actions include changing the project, im- posing conditions on the project, adopting plans or ordinances to avoid the problem► selecting an alternative to the project► or disapproving the project. In the event that the project is approved without adequate mitigation of sig nificant effects. the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect (Section 15088) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated sig- nificant effect (Section 15089). if the project requires discretionary approval from any state agency, the Notice of Determination must be filed with the Secretary for Resources, as well as with the County Clerk. Please co tntac_t ,Anna Polvos at (916) 445-0613 if you have arAr, questions. nc r B ; Anna Polvos Deputy bf-.ector State Clearinghouse Projects Coordination, a CEB/ap attachments cc: Resources Agency u r ttatrr of Ulltornia Memoranu The ltesburces Agency ` halo: October 8, 1982 TO 1. Jim Burns, Projects Coordinator Resources Agency 2. Mr. Stephen A. Streeter Butte County 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95.965 ram s ©e-oartmernt of Fish and Game u ject: Fourteen AIi'le House 'Rezone, Butte County (SCH 82083,104) 1. The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed tacresunearnF'oi�est House Rezone Draft 'EIR (SCEs 82083104] gor 186Ranch, Butte County. ter The project site lies within the East Teical Dmeorte nhama d�winWhen the range which is an Area of Specialadopted by Btutte County, the Current zoning of the area was being Department of Fish and Game recommended parcels in excess to 20' Downzoning to acres to protect fisheandprst Ranchife eandrChico, and petween Butte gmaller parcels 49�W n Creek and Big, o Creek is causing a serious Loss of wildlife Chic habitat by way of cumulative impacts which have not received due ` appraisal. We recommend consideration of ,an alternative project utioizang of larger parcels with permanexcept e te. riction on the 10+ acreszofithe housing the proponent's property p cluster. If the Department can be sof further assistanoe, please contact Paul T. Jensen, Regional ,Manager, 'Region 2355770O�mhus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 956'70, telephone (91.6) pR Director 4 I le 1!) ,rs f Department of Flealt'h 56"I"s state of California memorandum To Ron Bass , , Date i SEP J 01982 STATE CLEARINCHQUSE subject: 14 Mile House 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Planned Area -Cluster Rezone - SCH X182083104 From ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 714 P Street, Room 430 322-2308`i T18 '•`/ The Department has reviewed he subject environmental document and offers the follOWing Com_ The section on Noise (page 20 1) contains an incorrect statement. Current residential building standards donot result in an attenuation of sound` levels by 30.50 dB. A commonly accepted figure is 2,5 d0A if windows alre closed, and about 15 dBA if windows are open. Furthermore, if current standards attenuate 30-50 d0, triple glazing`as recommended Would not be necessary. We do agree that the several homes near Highway 32 should hd made aware of and plan for appropriate noise attenuation. if you have any questions or need further information con- -- cerning these comments, please contact Dr. Oerome Lukas of the Office of Noise Control, at 21,51 Berkeley Way, Room 613, Berkeley, CA 547040 415/540-2665. t s y Richard P. P. W lcoxo�G Assistant Deputy Director k RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES Comment: The department agrees that the several homes near, Highway 32 should be made aware of and plan for appropriate noise attenuation. Response: In our building design suggestions to the applicants, we recommended that those buildings nearest Highway 32 have reduced window area., and increased insulation in the walls and attic. This design produced the cited 30-50dB attenuation ac- cording to field tests of completed homes. A 20 foot high bank provides protection for walls and exterior window areas of any single story building in that area, but would allow sound penetration through roof areas. We have been recommending specific double glazed window units for walls facing noise sources. These do open and would reduce effective sound attenuation to the 15dB level stated in Mr. Wilcoxon0s letteri RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - DEPARTMENT OF E18H AND GAME Commett. j'he department recommLyids consideration of an alternati.ve project Utitizing Larger pareeLs with permanant restric- tion on downsizing of any of the proponent's property except for the 10+ a, -res of the housing wjZustar6 Respqnso, Figure 4 of the MR indicates the actual extent of the parcel proposed for development. Although the houses only cover 10.4 acres, <the common areas, intludingleachfiuldi ,recreation, and open space areas add an additional 30"40 acres to the area required for development, The 150± acres that ropro8eht the canyon wall sloping down to Little Chico Creek is designated as open space. The building potential of this portion is re- strictod by the limited soils and slopos. The applicant would agree to no further division of this 150± acres, but it cannot be separated from the building area because of General, Plan and Zoning Requirements establishing gross don8itioso ;CIO 4@9 .-.tyros-___•b:S "+vY.ilje. Tom Reid, Chico Environmental Health, Chico sue,tE�Y` Fourteen (14) Mile House PAC Rezone nn"r�: EIR - APS` 63,.01-02 Portion October 7,, 1982 This department 'reviewed the above EIR and awe Providing comments, p ding the following Sewz�ge Disposal t The report accurately describes the limited sewage the soils' within Much of the project area. favorable for leachfields.where the g disposal capacity most We cannot yeti y the adequacy of the area. The soils appear to be most coreaj th leachf eld is proposed, has submitted an adequate sewage disposal des' until the applicant letter of November 2, 1981 (attached). gn as requested in our Water Supply; The report discUsses a thirty the property. We cannot ve(30) gallon per minute well located on for the project until lie receive ,� water avai�xbility fy adequacyof domestic of November 2, 1981. � the anformatzon requested in our letter well The information must indlude a well 20 Yield data and wall construction information. R, accurate Y or may not complY with construction requirements for O is ink' well water well, mmLInitY Attachment _ cc: Eco -Analysts 9011s, Anderson -8 Rolls114 Seventh�Avenue 965 kir > Chico Angelo Volpato et al ,Chico Joe Henao .' P, 0• Box 1700, Chico Water Quality Control, 3201 S Street, SaGramer,to 1 xA November 2, 1981 A-119010 Voipato et al P. 0 Box 1700 P.A.C. Rezone Application Chico, California 95927 HWY. 32 near Pau•taon Mile Houso Road AP# 6t-01-02 Gentleman-, 'Phis department received a Planning A,npArtmont request to c0niment with respect to they above applinatioii, 1 Com fiction f our reveiv� will require evaluati ri o fRcilities afid the 17�°opos©d source of domestie�water. n of xo leasoposed snyubmi tach osal racluirocl setvaRe disposal pOrmit appiicntigit so that We may cflrrrlslece ciur review of the sowago disposal system, They application should itclurlo t1lo .data. i 'sawngo disposal design mlong with completedsoil dlassificdtion And percolation . PX4asQ also supply information relative to water avu.lability and quality the project. y fox Very truly yours, TOM Reid, R. 8 Division of Environmental leaf h TR/les dc. Rolls, lid®teen 4 Rolls Qa14Q Via. planing Comte. brovilld► Calik�stata r Inter-Depari', emoram um AnpErrnrx s rC UlJT .: TO. Planning Department - Environmenfa Review FROM, Land Development Section Public Works SUOJECTi 14 Mile. House PA -C Rezone DAM September 2, 1982 We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the subject PA -C and our only comment is that the requirement for a public road approach, approved by the California Transportation Commission, should be mentioned in the sections dealing with access and traffic. Clay Castleberry Director of Public Works ssistant Niendonsa Director JM/ns Bv�:o Cq. �rdn�(R9 Sip � gorge Deukmejian, Govorgor STATE OF CALIFORNIA " TRANSPORTATION AGENCY rte. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT .3 P- O, BOX 911, MARYSVILLE 95901 Telt--phone (916) '741-4277 January 20, 1983 03 -But --32 PM 22.4 14 -Mile House Rezone SCIS 82083104 Mr. Stephen.. Streeter Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 Dear Mr.. Streeter: Caltrans, District 3, has reviewed the draft ETR and tentative subdivision map for heite House Re32ner a 2l --unit residential project adjacent 9811 We have revised our earlier recommendations of NOvemb menter 'slfile. which are included ipropooshe eda60-fpotaaccessyon the east side of The location of the proposed Highway 32 is acceptable, subject to Pro it of adequate distance beyond the existing 'cut slope. upon the existing 20` -foot access on the west side o the highway remaining unitt}p roved, rather than enlarged as shown on the map. We understana that the applicant plans to make this xevision. This should be reflected on the final map. access to this As previously noted, any additional modified Calforna Trans portion oz Highway 32 requires approvalY .. portae on Commission, as well as Calttans Permits Engineer. Very truly yours, LEO J. TROMBATORE Transportation District Director Of By R. D Skidmore Chief, Environmental Branch Duiie Co. Planr m! Comm JAN 214 1983 Oroville, California Planning Department response to the memorandum dated September 2, 1982, from the Department of Public Works The applicant is well aware of the requirement for a public road approach that must be approved by the California Transportation Commission (CTS) . Caltrans had been contacted by the consultant in preparing the draft EIR. Though a condition/mitigation measure will address this factor, the involvement of the CTC :dor the public road approach is noted. The main section dealing with access and traffic appears on. pages 21 and 22 Planning Department response to the letter, dated. September 16, 1982, from the Chico Unified School District The attached responses and: letters, prepared for the Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision (note called. Canyon Park Estates) , are deemed adequate to address the concerns of the school district. A mitigation measure 'has been added to address the school impact factor. Planning Department response to the letter, dated January 20, 1983, from Caltrans L District 3 The revised recommendations are acknowledged. Two conditions from the Department of Public Works will ensure the involvement of Cal- trans and the California Transportation Commission. • � r RESPONSES TO COMMENTS COMMENT: Letters from the Chico Unified School District The SehooL District recommends that project rtpproval be de Zayed pending an agreement between, the County and D1.8 - trice for financing cZasar,?om space for new students. RESPONSE, The School District has requested the imposition o:. an mpact assessment for temporary school rooms by the Cityg; o and is makina similar request to Butte County CWhile the District will face potential overcrowd from the man currently overcrowding y y proposed or approved rezones, there is Still space in existing schools. The exact amount of available space depends upon utilization patterns, including space used for special programs. In the Parkview School two special classrooms are used for the programs. In addition, 43 students have been allowed to transfer to Parkview from other schools within the district: The exact number of students generated: by the Quail Carryon Project c^.nnot be accurately predicted, it is proaable, how- ever, that they will ba fewer than the district --wide average Of 0.43/DU. The proposed project will consist of exclusive homes with an older average age of occupants. If ownership in�the Nagenridge area can be typical, then up to one-half' of the residents will be upwardly mobile, existing Chico resi- dents who presently have children in the school district. A more probable number of new children from Quail Canyon is 25 or fewer VA buildout, which may take 8-12 years_. The County should contihtie to process development applications UP to the building permit stage; the point at which the school impaction .fees Will be assessed.. The School, District has meat with the Chico City Council, with two County Supervisors in attendance, and asked for establishment of an assessment fee. Local developers are currently trying to negotiate an equit- able fee schedule be Yore the next meeting of the CUSb.Board with "City Arid County off.lcials. Bute Co, F'1bni,i►t9 Gomm. tq ov 10 19sz orovwle Cal 01hi s BuTte Co. Planning Comm. NOV 1Y 198a n O -A I f Oroville, California 114 West Seventh Avenue Chico, California 95926 (916) 342-6991 November 15, 1982 Stephen streeter Butte Planning Department 7 County Center DrivO Oroville, CA 95965 RE: School Impact Mitigations -Quail Canyon Dear Steve: Enclosed is some additional wording to add to our earlier re- sponse to C.U.S.D. comments. 'In the event that a school :impact fee is not negotiated, then the school district May make findings Under Government Code section 05911. If these findings are supported by substantial evidence, and are made and, concurred in by the Board of Supervisors, then an ordinance establishing school impaction fees may be established pursuant to Government Code section 65979:: At express mitigation measure for this Project should be', Mit:LaALi2n Measure* Building permit applications for tesi" dentes in thissubdivisionshall be subject to any school Mitigation fees established by an ordinance enacted prior to the filing of such Applications. In view of such school impact mitigation measure;'it is not necessary to delay action on the tentative rnibili'vision map; since 8ignificant adverse impact to the schools can feasibly be tditigatod by imposing Appropriate fees at the building permit s The public benefit of avoiding stage of development. ihdrea.86d, housing costs due to mapping delay overrides Any potential school impacts sir.ce -such impacts can be feasibly mitigated, It Since ( Y, Albert Lli Beck, Ph.!), principal and Senior Analyst Vr III c Rufite Co. Planning Comm; NOV 16 1982 Croville, California Drake Homes John l..) Drah, I7nvid O. Jeffrie, 1350 East Ussen Avenue, Suite 7 RO FInv 1,1=18 c loco. CA 05927 Telephone 916 895.3931 November 15, 1982' Board of Ecluoation Chico Unified School District 1103 E. 7th Street Chico, CA 9592E Re, Quail Canyon Tentative Map Overcrowding in the Parkview Elementazy School Attendance Area Dens President and Boardmembers; am writing this letter on behalf of the Quail Canyon. Project developers to inform the Board of Education that ,the developers believe there exists reasonable methods to mitigate the over- r.rowcling projected .for the Parkv-t,ew attendance` area which have not been considered. C3or;�tuse my rogt1c,,8C to be on the November 17, :1952 Board of Ed- t:ivat,i,on tigatldu, was rejected, and itice the project application is scheduled for County neva ew on November 29, 1982, a discus-- salon of these mitigation meastWes x`1311.1 have to take place at the Novomber 29, 1982 Advisory Agency mooting. I would request that th`o Boitrd direct its reprosentative to attend this meeting, which will be held in the Board of 0pervi.sors Chambers in Orovil.le., at 0,100 a.m. in the morning. The reasonablemitigation measures which the Board of Education has not considered are t 1. Parkview attendance arroa pxojected student popula- tion inclatdes students €rom two projects which have not been approved by the County, namely Bidwell Heights (90 students) and 1:4 'Mi.le House (5 students) Also, there are 43 "'Pitirm ltd students attending Parkview from outside of the attendance area. Thetorore, fol,lowhig bttil,dout of the Quail Canyon Prof oc:'l. , tho N rlrvi ow n f. tondrthcr area wi11 have a remnining cn.pnc,.itSy of 28 ,s4idents Board of Bduca � n { Novomber 15, ly�,L Page 2 Also overlooked is the vacancy' factor for all projected units. With buildout of Quail Canyon, the attendance area will have 599 new homes. A 57o vacancy rate will decrease the expected student (elementary) population of these units from 139 to 1.32 students. Remaining student capacity in this i.nstancp, is 35. 2. A reasonable mitigation measure involves ap- plication of the alternatives for funding ,permanent school facilities authorized under the recently enacted "Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982" (Senate Bill No, 2001, Chapter 1439 - effective January 1983). Atten- dance arca overcrowding will not occur prior to the effective date of this Bill. 3. A reasonable mitigation measure involves an agreement negotiated directly between the de- velopers and the school district, to provide temporary school facilities under the p:rovi� sions of Government Code 5ec:ti_on 65973 (b) and 65971 (b) , ,Tho Board of Education is currently pursuing only the one mitigation of making 'findings under Government Section 65971, having the Board of Supervisors concur in said finding;s, and instituting school im- paction fens pursuant to Goverhhierit (:ode Section 65973. These fees would be collected at the -time building permits are ;ought, and would apply to all, undevelopod residential parcel's in the attendance a.r,ea so that adequate school facilities would be available when needed and overcl,owdi ng would be avoided In view of the additional school impact mitigation measures, there is no necessity to delay action on the tenta.ti.vesubdivision map since significant adverse impact to the schools can feasibly be mi.tign.ted by 'Imposing appropr i n.te, Pees n t the building permit stage or development, among ether wft,yH i '1110 puhL is LioneTi:t of avoiding increased housing costs due to mapping delay overri.des any potential school. impacts since such impacts ca.h be feasibly mitigated, Should the Board of Edacaf Tori have any questionsor like to discuss any of the alter native m:i tigrt' iA ,n mon ores above, please do not heli tate to contact us, Y xe'Al Bolster Mahni.ng Administrator ,111/r`k o mi, Al tlot,k hol'I'Vo l<i 11chelt, ,loon Bion lotwit Fiscal Analysis is prepored ,it the r(:,�quest Of the The follONVing analysis 3. County Planning Department, The "per Capita 111ult'Pl method is used because I it Was the one used by County staff in Quail Canyon and has been used on their fiscal analysis on Q j size of thz the much larger SidWell i1eigis project. The project, and the absence of a County -wide baseline preclude the use of more accurate and meaningful methods. The "Per capita" method ass,,Imas that the WaXt yeaV's costs can be.prO- dicted from those Of the current year, that service levels from most departments will remain in the same range In the s be used to future, and that the budg�,-t ploces ,es c)f capacityitself inNvill one department g balance short term short acity in others. It also assumes vitt existing su'�Plus capa - of the County and that service levels are equ,11 for all areas 6sector, neglecting usually assigns all costs to residential the demands created by Commercial, industrial and agricultural sector. In the currant analyses; costs are adjusted to Te - fleet service demands of non-residential uses, "Per Capital' a I nalysis 1 *8 applicable Only to residential uses. Revenues e calculated on a County-Wido basis, except Revenues are that basis. for sales tax, since most revenues are collected on t source for GeterAl Property taxes are the primary revenue Pt 01 - developer is assuming a value of. $200jOOO Fund monies, The develop is does hot include aftS, per unit at time Of completion, but this variation for larger homes, inflation or resftlo A more r ing constructiot profitable average Value is $240,000, assumi , e in value, costs, a 2 percent annual inareas re limited resales. The County is questing that.88assinen,t propertyand taxes be calculated 2n t,he 0b, property5tax Teunnt0Sawr)wedl thereTore $200,000 and $0 average $3801$1110, or .$550/year, Since homes are assessed after completion and/or sale, and half of the Property tax is I eriod, April Or December, due at the next semi-annual Pay P I elfty in r.ceiving anyproperty there is frequently a six month d refore as - taxes, One half of the,annUal Property tax is the signed to the Year Of the construction and full taxes to succeeding years, sale's, taxes are paid to tile State by local businesses then remitted back, Again, thetre -r ''t 0 ion I eip and tTJ county's P rL -iture by residents and re 0 _ is a delay between the expend 'begin with the County, although sales tax revenues by the and appliances and are more purchase of building materials likely to be received by the County in the year of contribution, Although disposable income will be relatively high, tile majority of retail sales are likely to take place within the City of Chico rather than in the unincorporated area. More affluent families spend a lower proportion of their in -come on taxable Sales. The commonly used figure in Butte County 18 16 percent of disposa . ble income, reflecting 40 percent of income on taxable items and 40 percent of that figure spent in County areas. This figure appears high in light of national surveys**, and the proximity Of the C.i,t'y, of Chico and its retail opportunities, compared, to those In the un- incorporated areas. If a.disposable income of $50,000 is assumed, then 4 10 percent capture by the County is more likely than 16%i This Would produce sales tax rov(inues of $50-household/year. Fines, Fore tures and Penalties are rece3vad on a County- wide basis, irrespective of place of residence. The 1982-88 expected revenues are $715,116 which translate to $4;97 per capita or $10.44/household/year. Licenses, Permits and Charges for Current Services are categories in Which fees are supposed to cover -M—e costs Of providing services. These are project specific and not te- lated to Population, Revenues from Use of Moneyand-- Property are monies un- related to development costs, Or Population levels. While they are included in some "per capita" analyses, they reflect past fiscal prudence rather than number of residents or types of uses State Aid funds encompass o. wide variety of in -lieu and subvention monies to cover specific programs or categories. Welfare -related monies contribute 41 percent of the total, the remainder are divided into General Fund and special fund categories, Highway Users monies 0104, 2106)are a major revenue source for road.oPeratIO118, in 1.982_83 these state funds Will amount to $21101j693. 'Other motor vehicle in -lieu funds Will add $2j009j672 :for a total of $4,111,865 or $27,58/capita, $60.02/hbUSehold/yfees, Mobile home criminal justice, mental health, I ABS Public Health, and the remaining State aid fund Will provide an additional $8,022,164 or $87491/hotisehold/yoar for a total of $l4!i08/11H/yV, Wiewel, A and R. Mier,. 1081, Analyzing Neighbor ' hood Re- tail Opportunities: A Guide for Carrying Out U Preliminary Market Study, Planhiag Advisory Service Report 358, Federal Aid provides monies for various funds, including a number of categories of welfare. Since Revenue Sharing and CETA monies are highly questionable future sources of monies they are excluded from this analysis. The remaining 'federal aid funds provide $113,796 or $10.42/11H/yr. Other Government Aid encompasses monies which are pri- marily designed for roads or local transportation needs. This provides $2j029,043 in 1082-83 or $29.62[111I/yr, Other Revenues are a minor source charge from County departments for sales of materials and services. The 1082- 83 budget shows a negative factor because of previous year deficits* Costs County services are provided on both a County -wide and unincorporated area only basis. In many instances, it is not possible to distinguish between elements of the popula- tion being served and it was, thel-efore assumed that all residents received, or were eligible to recievo, service, It was also assumed that the County currently charges lees adequate to cover all costs of service provided by Planning, Public Works, Health, and the Agricultural Commissioner office, Service charge revenues were not included in the service section and costs are not included in this portion. It should also be noted that the recent changes in bud- get and reductions in service levels negate the most basic premise, of the "pet capital" method. County Administration encompasses a VILtriety Of County- wide functions, the most prominent of which As the Assessor's office which. uses over 37 percent of the total administrative budget, other functions in County Adffiiftistvation are Support for County departments and since schools and spovi-al districts, in the case of elections, can be reitilbutsed for less than County -wide functions the population served is less than County wide. Accordingly, only 50 percent of the total budget is assumed to be assignable to residents of unincorporated areas, Public Protection Judicial functions are primarily ft Couftty-wide service, overlapping other agency boundaries within the County, A portion of the workload is associated with none --residential uses or non-residents, A service level of 805 is assumed for residential judicial functions resulting in an annual household cost of $40.01. The Sheriff's department has a combination of- County- wide and unincorporated area functions. The Patrol. and Investigation functions are primarily service for unincor- porated area's and it is estimated that 70 percent of the effort is expended for residential areas and units. The jail and administrative functions are primarily Colony -wide and again it is estimated that 70 percent of the effort is related to residential uses. This produces an annual house- hold cost of $73.35. Juvenile Detention and Probation Departments are County- wide functions. It is assumed that 75 percent of the effort of these functions is related to residential uses for an annual household cost of $21.02, Fire Protection_ is designed for the unincorporated areas of the County and it is assumed that 90 percent of the service is provided :for residential. uses. The annual household, cost is estimated at $80.74. Other Protection services including the Planning Commis- sion and Animal Control are not County-Nide, while others such as the Public Guardian and Civil Defense may be. Because of areas of unknown overlay an assumptiot-1 of 75 percent of the p l. household cost eof� $l?S9Gmeii to be applicable' W7'�.h a.t� an nua Publio Ways and racilities are primarily a County -wide :function although much of the maintenance and, improvement serves primarily residti.nts of unincorpoxaLod arras. Many roads and drainage channels serve f.gti(gtl.44.tiral or :forested areas only, A County -wide service 10VO! of 00 pOraOnt is assumed with an annual household cosi. of $45.05. The prol.)O- nents of this project will build a private road .system and residents will have: direct accoss to $ t itt o ill ghwjtS, 32. Pr( - j ect desig and topography prec'l.ude tiny mi:=asurabl o of Cc-irt upon local or downstream drai.nago s,ystams. IIe:alth Services and Sanitation are a combination of County -wide and limited area services: The County -wide com- ponents are preventive and menial health programs, education and laboratory services. Other .functions are assumed to be designed for unincorporated areas or recoverable expenses through ,fees, eater and sewage systems on this project will be built by the proponent and paid for, including maintenance and operating costs; by the homeowners. Many hea'lth.services Which are available on a CLunty-wide basis may not be used by resid,ehts of -this proposed project since 00Y �Vill rise p:t'ivate medical services. Overall only, 60 percent or h,o budget in this area appears assignable to resideats,0.1' this LyPe of project for an annual household cost of $47,82i components is - Assistance, after removal a minor budget item Of welfare and CLIA cost Of $2iU. m With an Annual household Education costs include those associa,tod the nqjri:Ly With 1?7bFai�� system which benej,its the entj. annual household cost is $15-88. re C01"ItY - Th it for The memorial balls are cla,9sfied as Recrease County -Wide, The annual household cos And ae The _�is ution $:L-05. r accumulative costs and revenues are show n and 2. Table 3 contains comparisons at Year I in Tables units) Year 5 With 10 units a I With 2 10-12 Years f � nd buildout at 21 ,nits in Or 3 levels 01 assessed valuation. instance, revenue jjOW8 Were higher than cos . In each services. While the amountscosts Of County vary, the findings are in Agree- ment with other, More detailed studies dO110 b agenCie8 and private firms in various Y a variety Of parts Of California.c These uniformly demonstrate that houses witha I n assessed valuation of $150 to c 000 Or greater provide adequ over Costs, or a the service taxes te revenues lee costs, Particularly s Alone been -reduced due to budgetary inco cover 'almost all Of service constraints. 10VOIS have F TABLE J REVENUES SOURCE YEAR 1 YEAR.2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 BUILDOUT OF UNITS 2 4 6- 8 10 21 Property Taxes Amt/HH 150,000 330.00 330.00 990.00 1650.00 231.0.00 2970.00 6930.00 2001000 440.00 -1110.00 1320.00+ 3080.00 3960, QO 9240.00 2a� 000 SLV: ; ;> 'n.,�- py (+ 1tJJ. oc (2200.00 2' C �. ir,( ;850.0tr tY.:,r'. , u i".uilC�: UO Sales Taxes 50,00 100,00 2001100 300.00 400.00 500.00 1050,,00 a� Fine, Fnreitures, Penalties 10.44 20.88 4.76 62.64 83.54 104.40 219.24 State Aid 147.93 295.86 591.72 881.58 1183.44 1.479.30 3106.53 Federal Aid 10.42 20.84 41.64 62,52 _ 83_.36 104.20 21.8.82 Total 0150,000 AV 826.49 1983.60 3051.60 4297.30 5454,10 12,146.61. 200,000 AV 936.49 2323.60 3601.60 5067.30 6444.10 14,456.61 2'50)000 AV 1046.49 2643.60 4161.60 5837.30 1484.10 16,766.6. TABLE 2 COSTS GENERAL, ADMINISTRATION PUBLIC PROTECTION 31523,921 CIV/NCly 90/50 P. C. 26.58 % SVC 50 PER H. H. 27.91 Judicial' SIFR''r Ja 1, Administration DETENTION � CORRECTIONS t FIRE PROTECTION OTHER PROTECTION PUBLIC JAI'S & FACIILITIES HEALTH SANITATION PUBLIC ASSLSTANCE 5 Age .+P0 n o 713 3 3�4 713 1, 920, 335 2,340)872 919,193 5,142, 289 5,459,629 CSV T r nC�4 NM CW Citi ' 2J.::'r` .ice, R 7?rw8 13.35 16,27 11.4 35.75 37.05 SO 7f) In 75 90 25 60 00 a. 49,01 39,27 34,08 21.02 30.74 117. 06 05 .47.82 Lass i4 e1 f etre, CET,A EDL'CATIOX- (Libraries) RECREATICG.", 146,704 1,088.026, 71,390 Chi' CSS' C'1V 1.02 r) Y.ti{6 1 0.50 100.. 100 100 2. is 15.88 1.05 331..93 Number o, "jit5 Yeatis, Costs 2 033.36 1,327.72 4 6 10 991., 5$ 8 2,665,44 1.0 21: 3)319,30 6,970,53