HomeMy WebLinkAbout82-42 REZONE FROM TM-5 & TM-40 TO PAC 7 OF 74a Removal of vegetation would occur as a result OF -road con-
t be
struction, and h.oinesite preparation. This impactcxtensiVeuld oamount
sho
Significant due to the small number of
of open. space.,
It - but not endan ered" Bidwell 8 to
4b ; Two populations of the are
r occur on Lot 22. Lot 22 is to
knotweed (Polygol�um bida�wlicae)
,remain as pasture land, which should partially reduce potential
impacts oil the plants .
4c New species of plants tvottuti] zeonativC s ec * es ashe ea as
ouch
landscaping. Landscaping should
as possible.
Residential development would encroach upon existing
Sa,,Cydt capacity Of the site'
habitat and may reduce the wildlife Carrying p y rats,
Species tolerant of man's presence, such as raccoons, skunks,
rat
p and scrub'ays, may increase in number.
si-
s arrows, 7
o be
tive wildlife area is
f� vaterefortwi� dlifeeamwhich
Th ThisStream,ears tc
m, inthe
an important Source o
grassy portion of Lot 22, will remain as undeveloped pasture Land.
Domestic dogs; if allowed to roam unattendedtC ouldachase�vdee and
other wildlife- bets must be confined
unattended
vehicular
be adversel Proposed lots 16 through. 21
mmay a e y hlementl n t ec
noise from Ilig! ,Coun y General
ay a 2
Plannotes that noIsc* ?,,ivels exceed the adoptedCNrL of Ltln GO dB
within 200 feet of high speed highways.
8a,bi currently, approximately 153 acres of the project site are
in GOL, zoned TriWdO, end 33 acres in Agractiltural-Residential,
with a density of Is acres
11
• constructed, acres
zoned Thi -S. If land weredevelopedunder those cc nstra�n ,
dwelling knits could be c
The applicant proposes to build 21 D%Us, resulting in
per D/CI. 1 D/U, This comparison is somewhat mis-
a density of 0.6 acres Per
leading, since under a PA -C they would be required to leave 80°�
(12.3 acres) of GC7L as open space
tandea
a PA- C, 8o dedication of project lanel to open space Would
apply only to areas loccaterl in the GOLCenalPenn designation.
viable
In areas designated A -R �n thtany clens.ty under' 20 acres
density is ane acre per DM (though a loved) : Provid°ng that act
os
er ust be Condit' developmentnareymet, lacehe d oncdevelopable ant Cot' id hlandtr4a theoretically
develop , a PA -C, where 34 and are p. The
(1 D/U in the 001, area, ani �s,�nAshmentionedc intense development.
applicant has proposed 21 /
under an A -R land: use des gn., critevia4$
i 1. ould,on1nal.soustmrestrict �site adevelopment.
Sewage and slope constraints
Land on surrounding Properties has not been developed, and,pr'-
max ly exists as open ct ma �l oncatiTft9t other l8.hdo vnerssinuthe are
buildout o f tl�i pro j'ect may.
. p�-opextyo
to cons do aesidential doVelopItent Of their
Appendix P page 8d of o
9a, b: Some natural resources would be used for construction of
roads and residences. Upon completion, the use of nonrenewable
resources for heating, air conditioning and applicance operation
would occur at a sustained level;
11 At full. buildout,, this development could increase the opu
lation of the area by 42-63 persons. This popilation incretise is
not considered to be significant.
13a,,c,.f t As a result of this project, about 2:10 vehicle trips
per day could be added to High 32, which has a current traffic
volume of about 2,000 trips per day (1980 count) . This increase
in area traffic is well below the design level, and capacity of
the highway. Turning movements on andoff the higliway would in-
crease the possibility of accidents; the access road should be
designer to permit rapid ingress and egress: According to
Caltrans, Highway 32 is categorized as an ITxp-essway", with.
highly rest'icted access, Caltrans analysts note that highway 32,
because of terrain and limited sight distance, is a hazardous
road in the foothill and mountain areas of Butte County. Officials
at Caltrans have also advised that a new access approach into the
project site on the ;east side of highway 32 should be located op-
posite an existing access point on the west side of the road "for
safety purposes". (Refer to attached correspondence from the
District 3 office of Caltrans.)
14a: Continued development along l-Ilighway 32 will soon reach d
level requiring a year-round managed fare station.Details on
exact location, equipment, personnel., and funding will need to be
worked out between the Fire Department, current residents in the
area and developers;
A pressurized fire hydrant system will be provided. Fire suppression`
water will be obtained :From the 20;000 gallon swimming pool. Sped.
ficatiois for the hydrant system must meet the approval of the Butte
Cr,nnty fire 'Department/California Department of Forestry. Sufficient
t trn-around area will be provided at the end of the cul. -de -sacs.
Turn -out areas wall be esablished, approximately one-half way down
each internal road to allow :Cor passage of fire -fighting vehicles.
Mitigations to reduce demand on fire protection services include
the implementation O a :fuel reduction program along roads and
around. Houses and the use of fire resistant building materials and
landscaping:
14b As the population of the Forest Ranch area continues to
iticrease, additional demands will be placed on the Sheriff's Do-
partment. Mitigation measures include the installation of security
devices such as alarm systems :_.and deadbolt locks; iniplenyentatioi�
of a neighboiiwod watch program; and controlling vehicle entry With
an automatic security grate.
14c: Adequate capacity is available at all schools to be
attended by students living in this development. As the pop-
ulation along Highway 32 increases, an elementary school bus
route may be required.
15a,b The nearest concentration of large retail services is
located in Chico, approximately 14 miles south of the project
sate, Commutation from the site by future residents represents
a marginally greater increase in energy consumption (primtarily
vehicular fuels) than would occur if the proposed project IVe7e
located within the urban. area of Chico.
16e: Refer to item Sc.
17a: The area proposed for the community leachf:W.1d is character-
ized by fairly rapid percolation rates (4,. 0-6.5 minutes/inch)
Unless leachlines 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.
17b: The presence of rattlesnakes and the possibility of rabies
in the small mammal population present an area -wide .risk of unknown
significance. Vaccinatinn pets against rabies and confining them
to residential areas would reduc-e this potential hazard..
Large populations of tree hole mosquitos may present a seasonal
nuisance to the residents. They also serve as carriers of canine
heartworm. The project is located within the Butte County Mosquito
Abatement Distract; however, the homeowner's association may wish
to supplement this control with a seasonal program of their own=
1.9; Construction of roads and houses world change the visual
appearance and character of the site. The proposed setbacks,
proper arclY:'tectural design, and landscaping should reduce this
impact. Al.thoug;h the min -storage facility will, be adjacent to
Highway 32, it will not be visible dile to terrain.
21 One archaeological site consisting of two small, bedrock.
mortars was noted wring a site inspection. This site has been
mapped and recorded, and no further mitigation measures are required,.
An: historic site consisting of the foundation and associated
features of Fourteen. mile House was also noted on the property,
but has since been destroyed. The archaeologist recommends an
attempt be made to designate the site as a "California Point of,
historical. Interest"and have a marker placed along Highway 32
explaining the significance of the site:
22d: Refer to sections 1, 3, 4, 50 21.
22bt kefer' to discussion of items 8a and b,
22c; Potential cumulative impacts of this project are related to
increased traffic, increased demand on pulslic services and loss
of vegetation and wildlife ha.bitat,
Appendix J- - page 8f of 9
Alternative 1 No Project
Under the "No Project" Alternative, the site would remain in
its present state.
'Advantages - Impacts related to human Occupation of the
site would not occur. These include disruption of ground sur-
face and increased erosion, loss of vegetation and wildlife
habitat, increased traffic and traffic -related hazards, increased,
demand for public services, and possible exposure of people to
wildfire hazard and animal -borne diseases.
Disadvantages - No environmental disadvantages can be
Identit ed .for this alternative. Denial of the project would not
preclude development of the site under the current zoning and
General Plan designation, which would likely result in fewer
dwelling units placed on the proposed site.
Alternative 2 - Higher Density
Under this alternative, the site would be developed at a
higher density. Maximum buildout in a PA -C under current General
Plan designations would allow the construction o:E 57 D/Us, providing
all other development criteria are satisfied,
Advantages -'Per capita cost for public services, roads,
and Oththis er . am rov9ments would be reduced. Clustering more units
oat
s site might reduce development pressures from other
s:013'1lar areas.
Disadyanta es - hnvironmental impacts associated with .human
inha'51tance ofe site would increase proportionally. Providing
water for mote residences may not be feasible. The leachfield
area will not accommodate a higher density.
Alternative 3 - Lower. Density
Under this Proposal the site would be developed as currently.
zoned (Tri -40 and TAI -5), Approximately 153 acres of the site are
located in the Tri -40 zone and 33 acres in the area. zoned TM -5,
A total, of it D/Us could be built, providing all other state and
county development criteria were satisfied,
ntentAdi�ntages - potential adverse impacts to the natural environ.-
traffic hazards increased demand for public
services and wildlife hazards, would, compared to the proposed
project; be reduced in severity
llisadvantages Unobstructed scenic views would be reduced
�.n
quality) induced sprawl development of land surrounding the
Cligsway 32 corridor, impacts to the ns:tural environment and
Appendix F - pago Bg of 9
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT (continued)
exposure of persons to wildfires and traffic hazards would
still occur if the site were developed under existing General
Plan designations and zones Although less severe than those
that would potentially occur under the proposed project,
several of these impacts would nonetheless require mitigation
to reduce theimpact to a level of insignificance.
Appendix P _ page 811 o:- 0
tip;
IV. DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
on the: basis of this initial. pvaivatioin:
0 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION
is 326c6mmended«
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there Will not
be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on an attached sheet
have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
:Is PCONMENDE.' ,
1 find the proposed projectan MAY
have a significant
i AL IMPACT
effect on the environ ,
REPORT is required.
December 7, 1981
Date (S;gnature)
1V 11 iam
Ri Sahas
For. e nun ningDep-C.
Reviewed by:
len A. 5tvooter
Dnv� ronmen al Assessment px epgvea,, for the CbUnty
oL Butte by; 114-Analysts
-An Avenue
Chico, CA 9592E
�a
August 1981
Revised by Butte County Planning pepsrtiikent
November/Detember 1981
Append:tx :: page 9' of 9
�o. Planning 0q�
EDN��ND G. BROWN. A., Goyor"Ot
S3Au=OT CALIFORNIA 7RANUUMA71ON AGENCY
r n i41t7
_ .1611
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Oroville, (Zalifcraia Y
pr C4 fl 911r MA.RYSVILLE 95901
Telephone ( 916) 674-4277
November 13, 1981
03 -But -32
PM 22.4 ✓
14 -Mile house
Butte County
Planning Conan s s i on
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Members of the Commission
Thank you for the opportunity to review the rezone application
which would allow construction of a 21 -unit development by
the Ill mle, House, Inc The site is on the east side of highway
32, south of Forest Ranch..
The proposed enlargement of an existing; 20 -foot road approach
for Ten -Mile House Road and constructior'1 of a new 50 -foot access
openin- should be directly opposite each other, rather than
70' feet apart, f`or safety purposes -
improvements should have no adverse traffte impacts.
Y . j,equire approval
The modification of any 1<Lccegs In this area wo1 1
by the California Transportation C,OMM11,"i0l" a environmental
document should identify tle impacts of ti"1i' 1,roric to be performed
within the State richt of way, such as vest-,etation removal, and
appropriate mitiCation measures. The district would then submit
tine final environmental document tit 1th the application for a new
access ol)ening
Sincerely
District Director off , ,,ansportation
Dy
Chief,, tnv�"rronmerf al Dranch
April 1, 1982
95965
Ray E. Johnson, Jr
p.0. Box 1:700
Chico, Ca. 95927
p
Re. EIR Bee: Deposit for 14'Mile :House .PA- C
Dear Mr. Johnson.:
ect of 14 Mile douse, located
The Draft EIR for the proposed Pro J is
alone State Highway 32 in the ForEsdocumentt Ranch aisasubma ttedltoethe
d
ready for circulation. Before the ho:aever, an env
public and State Clearinghouse for review,
- posit of $600.00 must be submitted to the County'
mental review de 2,3, 1982. We will not continue
planning Department by July
processing the EIR without the requested depto osit.
p ub
The deposit. of $600.00 islleunused amountsuiredrofotheodeposiit will be
lishing, and printing. A how�evex that unanti
refunded to the applicant. You shou`id note, ' the Draft
cipated extraordinary costs incurred while processing
EIR n:ay require the submission of additional funds,
Attached, for Your review and reference,
is the ,portion of Resolu
tion 81-182 entf Costs foT
itled "Procedur sactxRepor slnatrhison psectian sets
Preparation Of Environmental I p our prn7ect•
forth the procedure we are following with y
or require further information conc:xnng
zf you have questions, environmental revieta fEos, or
file proposed pxoaect Draft EIR, between
ocess_ lease contact this
office on a weekday
neva.
ew r , P
p
8-00 a.m. and 5:00 pm
Respect ully,,'
5
ti�'illa.am R. an s
Associate planner
WRS '.I jr
cd.A, Beck, Tyco -Analysts
y
ILiIG FEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Rezones and General Plan Amendments
I3se Permits
Variances
LAEC Annexations
Sewage Disposal Permits
Waiver of Parcel Maps
Miscellaneous
Land Divisions and Condominiums of
four units or Less
arcel maps involving
Subdivisions, P arc and Condominiums
more than four p
of more than four units
$220
$220
$140
$220
$220
$220
$220
$220
$221 + $5 per lot (or unit) y
Die amount not to
e tceed a a total of
$'.100
'
Multiple proJect:
e the same site is affecpplication
A multiple prnJby two
ect is Daher if the app
ro ects at the same location,
or more related p J ro'eet itc filed within six months of the
ro' ect shall be
for each succeeding p J ro'ect fee plus 50 percent of
Or din, The fee for a multiple p J
p the highest p J -
x computednaspthe sum °Ct fee.
each additional prole
OF COSTS FOR
PROCEDURES FOR DETERNMENTALNIMPACT REPORTS
PREPARATION OF ENVIRO a all
�q and Public Pro`ects: The app
licant shall bay
Priin
vateil're aration of an environmental
costs incurred for adn includ ng the £ilpn
Of all Notices of Deter
impact report up to and
5 mination related to the project.
`ronmental ReVieW Coordinat�nistrationShall tofathe te cenViron-
The Envi re aration and adm
associated with t In preparing the inistraton�or
he p a n and adm
p e estimate of costs the
mental impact report re aria ubl is hearing
act report p p
env Lronmental imp and
,. i f any,
Environmental Review Goorslncjnsu'ltant�snfeese p In estimating
tinting cost , tho County.
�) attendance, p enses ir►curred by
any othet rilevantnne� time, the Environmental Review Coordinator
em to ees
x-; pets
of County P. y . .
the conks of p the hourly salary 'rate
Shall multiply
i e `re oration and. ad ministration of the envaronmenta
involved it the Pt actor of two
�W r�npac r epos k by
The applicant shall deposit the amount estimated by the
Environmental Review Coord natcOtto with Butteon
,Of the environmental impact p
If the actual preparation and administration costs are less
than the amount deposited by the applicant, the remaining, amount
a monn are
ey shall be returned. efathlicantsshalOf lrpayrt 'he oadditional
greater than the ,estimate, the pp
'count, In determining actual preparation and administration costs,
er by the
ersonr►el costs shall be determined in the same mann
environmental Review Coordinator, as when estimating costs of
personnel time.
In the case o nitial
subdivisions, when an environmental impact
report is required, any amount of the fee deposited for Initial
review not yet expended, shall. be credited towards the preparation
If an
and administratioac frehortnisrnot�requ rental imdacorrifothe costs of
environmental imp. P
the preparation and administration of the environmental impact
report are Less than the filingffhaLol�r�ion'ofhthe�fiingtfee
shall be entitled to a refund o portion
and administration
which exceeds the actual costs of preparation
wh the environmental imppact repot, and/or initial review.
Such refund shall. only be processed when the amount of such
refund exceeds $25.00.
(August ,1.981:)
11
a
: R
lafi�NIA--TRANSPORTATION AGE10
ic-spwRTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
7f. Ci = S11. AAARYSVII.LE 95901'
Telephone '(916) 674-4543
Jamary 21, 1982
t.
al'
EDMUND GaBROWN JR., Govan.,,
03 -A --95/=A Review
)xtlia Co. r lawlirg ua-nuri.
Xr, Clay Castleberry 1 A M ,a 5 loo?
i.rector of Public Works
of Butte County Orsvilh, Caiarnia
7 County Center Drive
Croville, CA 95965
Dear Dor. Castleberryy
his letter is to :inform your staff of our concern for development along non.
freeway State highways within your jurisdiction.
1 axe Department of Transportation has great concern for the safety of the users
of the State hi&way system. This system normally provides a backbone
�Oranspoe ation system and allows for reasonably rapid movemer: '?tvteen
co,=unitie:: Under the present economic constraints On S of
government, the availability of State funds to make future 1T r-ements is
exmec-ted to be very limited: It is our opinion that adequate `wtv can be
provided within limited governmental resources by keeping the r tits of
conflict to a minimum. This can be accormlished by minimizi number of
access points to the State highway. Wherever possible, new Vment should
orientatedbe splits ng obta. new or
add,itionalaccess Lot Yandasubdivisions shaild be dog° I a manner
vrhzre new access Obligations to the State h3lj§iway are not iho ped, or at
least minimized. Greater safety can be accomplished by having a channelized
intersection ratherthan numerous driveways spread over as area that makes the
cost of channelization prohibitivei,
your cooperation in handling this matter will be greatly appreciated: If I can.
he of any assistance, please contact me at (916) 674--4.543
i�ery tru.7y yours,
`M TROMBA 0 ,
SP
district Director of Transportation
3i B. $rcckett
Acting Deputy District Director
":lanning and Public Transportation
.. ., .... _ ,...... .., .... ,err .... iS..�.�.. ...-.. ..� .._ .. _..- ..y'x ,.. r
jy� 4
.�-• , . - ' ! A 64 t:;? i t`4 P. A t WEA,, r H ANC} i F A 1 .r v
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE -- OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 534.4601
Jamlary 6, 1982
Ray E. Johnson, Jr.
Devcor Inc
P. d. Box 1700
Chico, CA 95927
RE EIR Requirement dor 14 Mile [louse PA -C
AP 63-01-02 (ptn
Log 51-10-14-03
Deni- Mr. Johnson
After meeting with you in December 1951 to dijcuss your
written appeal oC an FIR Toqui emcnt for the proposed 'PA -C
at 14 Mile House south OE Forest Rancli the 'P;lanni'ng .De-
partment agreed to reconsider the appeal, pendi.n8 the out-
COMM Of your t'e'-eValuation of an FIR reclulr+✓,mont, t under-
stood that you would ask your consultant to prepare an
estimato of time and costs Cor completing an 11iR, and
thereafter notify th.i s dep-artment or youl' de cisiOn regarding
the '.formal appeal,
Since the planning Departlncht 11a,s recoi.ved no commun oa`r or>
from you regarding this matter, I Have fio rwardecl your appoal
to the County Clerk to schedule before the "Boar4l of 8-uper,,
visors.
The Planning Department would appreciate any forther :infor
'oration you could submit at the earliest cotivcni.ellt elate.
You will be noti fi et3 by the County when a data h;as be on set
fov hearing your apps°ax before the Board c,,f; Supervisora
Fespecttully,
1'., e IF
Gam'
William R. Sands
Associate Planner
IMS 1I t
cc Al ;Beep, Eco -Analysts
uVIAL
..<2 \ essay action
y
Please °` ^4 appeal Item
., hoard
....rrepare reply
on n'e:; ot;ak's
agenda to set hearing
....,,x mment
date. Applicant may
withdraw appeal, but we „
.;.....Note and return
need to proceed in case.
and file
he does not. Attached
„,,...<.1tevestigate
is a copy Ofsurrounding
lift.
property owners
,.***-ks requested
for information
*,R4.,.�et telephone
conversation
` Johnsif+� 71r. PEVCOR INC.
L"'�MM-----ZZ DEVELOPER P. O. Box 1700 Chico, California 95927 (916) 3443-56`33
auiFo Ca. Onnnisq COMM
December 14, i981 iJEl9$1
Owvilh4 Galifar?ii
Butte County Board of Supervisors
c/o County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oro`ville, California 95965
Ike: Log #09-10—•14-03 — 14—Mile—House, Inc,
Gentlemen:
We wish to appeal the requirement of an 5IR for ou)'°
` application to rezone portions of AP X63--01-02 from
VA -40 and TN -1-5 to PA -C.
'The current zoning would allow 80-81 parcels on our
total property and 37 on the portion being proposed
for rezoning. We hired Rolls, '\nderson and Rolls and
Fco-Analysts in Chico to. provide engineering and
environmental analyses for a better projecti Based
on their recommendations, we reduced our proposal. to
21 building sites concentrated on -10.4 acres. I
addition, p-ropi?rty north of Highway 33
fromthe
we project
pro oval. These reductions were made
project roposa
to reduce adverse envirohmOOtal effects below the
level of significance.
We feel that our reduction in project size s:.gnificantly
reduces adverse environmental effects and that our
environmental assessment, which the County used in their
Initial Study, provides adequate information for our
Planning. Commission and sueerviso, s so that they can
make a decision incorporating environmental concerns
and protective measures;
pew lly yours,
U.
.,J h n JO.
Devc, r, Inc.
,r
Rube Count,
5�
0 S I t . ri i, !i G i' 'ii ti i`aL% 5 '] A U T Y
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY GENTCk DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA. 95965
PHONE: 534.4601
)~7ccomber 16, 1981
Ray E, Johnson, J -r.
Uovcot Inc:..
P. 0. Box 1700
Chico, CA 95927
RE Rezone to PA -C
AP 63-01-02 (ptn)
Loo H 81-10-•14-03
Supplemental Information -to Appendix F
and E;tR Requirement
Dear Dir: Johnson
Based on a completed. Initial Study o�C the prraposed PA -C
located at 14 Mile House a determination requ ri71g an PPR
Cor the project was nado
According to Cali Cornu Env Lronmental Qua t i ty ,Act (CSQA)
Gui.cle:l encs' (section 15084) at BIR shttl,l he prrptiro(l for a
project when °lmplementati.on, of the project-, (a) 111IIay have
a. signtCicant effect on the environment"; (b) "whenever :It
can be fairly argued on the basis' of subsuintial eviclence
that the project may have .1 si gni Cicant e k i ect on the onv i ron-
ment" and (c) "then there is setriotls publ Ic controversy con -
Corning the environmental of-f`ects of a project",
The Initial Study complotecl ;Cor the p°ropo.secl projoct is .Ea rlY
extensi'vo, providing much of the inCorma.tio'n and analysis that
Would he inclr.Ided ;in aft EIR however, a sepavato document Sub-
mitted as an STIR :c.q roquired A substantial amoLrilt,of the
information, and appendices contained �n the Initial
Study dray be Included in the SIR in a reor`gahi:zed Corm.
The Collo.tthg information is provided as a set or guidelines
for preparation of an 'SIR, Focusing on spoei Cic envi'ronmentat
iSSLIos
5nl'.NU1T ntvll Gni�l'CE!T
Tho MR should follo%q a stallda,Ie format, winimal'ly including
the Col'toar tlg sections: project tlescri.ption; clescr:iptioll Of
env i.rotimen'tal ,setting; discussion Of potentially' stgni.fica11t
environmental impacts and -proposed Mitlgati011 111e7sures to
minimize impacts ; identification of significant onvi ronmen.tal
Impacts that cannot be avoided; growth-induc:ing Impact of- the
proposed action (California linvivonmental, Quality Act Gu.i.dGlillcs,-
section 1.5110) alternative's to the proposed project
LOCUS OP SIR
1'11e sill should .EocuS on potentially si.cni N,cant Impacts that
would have adverse etEects on the environment. `These are
ictenti.Eied and discussed below. The alpha-nttmor i.c i tci�i :in
Appendil F that COT respo;nic s to the environmental. concern 'is
mated in parenthesis.
Soil Erosion
(lbE,1cn ,e) • Potential impacts icentiEied i.n the
ti atCon moasures 'that should propose mi�.
cvoul.d min ml L, this or entir
ha ttrcl c'].y' el•ii0nufc ` t6
on Site and Orf -Site Drainag(c , 1Cie); 't'lte V'11} slioulcl norc
i t�� -ac�-sL't s at>nr cTiO innge
tic
litLe ill is ttcrl`acr:with or
site raitlttge imp.rotxelt,ents to reduce or ollm'incito ;oil oVOSion
on and off the site, and protect wator c1tttllitj� 7;n C.ittlo Chico
Creek.
Plant Life (41)) The tilt should further describe,the site
evo.l oilmen t t lat will border cOmmon areas tghere retro and en
dangeved plants mny exist. T}1e antaysis should Cttlly ea;pla n
how potential rare Plant locations will be protected by the
current site design, or propose additional mitigati.6n measurers
:to protect these sensitive area:,
yo•ise (6b),, The prepaTcr Or the lrjR should tnol'e dully discuss
Potential noise :111apacts to res idents From t ra E t ic on Highi�ray: 520
fully addressing the Caltrans assesstltctnt Of this imp tet. AtLt3
gati.ons that meet Caltrans` standards EOT no'lso attenuation
should be proposed=
t.,ttld Use (8n) The Initial Study notes the ctcrront use of rh C:s
project sit
c�`nnzl surtvundirtg pt�ot�ertios. Tile EtR sktou'ld more
1'it1 l:y explain, holy the proposed Project iwi contpat ilal r with a � �1 r�cxy
Ray E. Johnson, Jr.
AP63-01-02 (ptil)
Page
Irecembcr 16, :1981
uncles •,bloc: riche and canyon area, whore only scattered resi-
dential
os .-
dential development on large (40+ acres) aaj o in ink, ptrrcels now
exists to the cast, west and south or tllo pr ca j ac: t s i tc . (Pa rcel s
to the north are predominantly S + acres in Size.
Circulation (lsc C_. An analysis of trafJLc imp"Wts should .irt•-
corporate all. of Caltrans' concerns .dor this sect -tom o h Highway
32, as well as the cumulative impacts on highway traffic. Pro-
posed ini.t,igations should conform' to Caltrans' �recoimiic tdations .
toc ition of access roads connecting to FligllWaY 32 is a special
oncerTr here
Fire Protection (14a�1. The discussion of F°i&ro hazards in an U
s ould. note rosponso t;mos to the projOct sito From -the nearest
fj,re station, and whither nr, not year-round servl.ce Is Provided,
A rOV .eyv O Butte County's policies Ltrtd litttte CoLtnt; E�'rre Depar�tlm-at/
Ctrllf"o -nia Department oT forestry recommeadattons for location
and design of resiclential dove lgpmetrts should bo Lncttttlod. list
,mitigation, measures separately from analysis
Acle uat0 Sej,rri e Disposal (17a), The prel)rrer of �thr 'BTR sliould
consul -t ti`lo Butte County E!-�n�>� onvontril licrrlth Department and incot-
po•, (e tiioir sirggcstioris into thtl tles;i,gn of tte SawUge disposcil
S- tem. The analysis slLotrld clo"rtly explain hose a.clecltr_ate-. Cittva-
tiot" and pr•cvontion of contamlriatod el Cluent Crotty r►rigrating wort-
ic:ally or horicontati.y to surf'LIC0 or grotrridwatrr strpp:Lies WOUld
be accompl ishr ct.
Short_ Cerra 8enbkits -vs Adverse Effects an 1pbl iel Adopted Loti&-
—�.
'Germ hnvit�o.nme.ntal GotJi s (22b) 'lac need. tr ' TiRtsa.ng reason dor
site e so 0, , 10 �►rtr eeonomio one;Cits to the dovel.oper and public
should be discussed in rolation to state and coct.nty o tvir`ontriontal
policies -formulated. to protect persons and property from adverse
.impacts as a result of land clevolopnieitt
Cumtrlati.e li��accs, Sc,,vera, potentially -adverse impacts have boon
�r : � " + p
cnta : The combined o focts of those
impacts, -11 its cumuln.tcve 1111pacts or inereasod tra.C.rl,c on
Highway iti tiro proposed 'aro j ect addotl to other potent'Lal
projects eting Highway 32 should be t vaf.tiatedi Existing ni .t w
gatttrg Cl'rcttnistances anti/or ►Sroposed itt.iti,g.rt`ion:� sltotticl be
cl early deriti l i ocl. Dace nio
Caltrans trans should be consul ter' oit
this 'issue �v tlt rcga.rcl to at ltt4t> le Lovell of se rvcce, effect
oil trtj r,ric ha ards and suita[Ac mitigations to adverse impacts,
Ray E. Johnson, Jr
AP 63-01-02 (ptn)
Rat.e 4
December 16, 1981
As prt Jiot:tsly noted, expansion of the In tial Studd into an
EIR, focused on the environmental concerns just outlined,
should help re:educe your material, costs and time in preparation
of the EIR The project description and description of the
environmental setting in the :Initial StUcbr; ea. , are attenuate
for inclusion as written in an EMR.
The final Appendix F prepared and sent to you by the County
is to be the document used :dor reference or :incor1 oration into
an ::!, IR. Vie County revision of the original draft Appendix F,
substantially cdif e'rs 'n content and analysis on corta n check -
last :items, from the prelilninar), draft=
If you have fui`theT c[uestions; or require additional information,
p:Lease do not hesitate to contact myself or StOVC Streeter-
please
534-460:1 before 1;00 p.m. on weekdays, or write to
one o.r us at the address listed on the letterhead,
Respectfully;
• r
Wil liaw f.. 54111ess
AssoC 'Late plan:,er
ti1�12:� �1t
cc-, R01s, Andei°son i, Rolls
Al fleck, t;co-Analysts
x
i
L1NtEDS?'ATkB P05TXih
i'va'tvA,voW,p�xe�n.»•.�.,
1
SEND<:R INSTRUCTI NS �� "
F
�
Ilhi;y+owcrtMme, �ldnq, end YIP Code
w'
• ComPllto hemi 1, 2, ird a 4iAwna
• htt to aunt ik6clt
'tq
ch at It tP�ahphpYnriit�,
othow►o, ifflk t tuck of enkif
"tEndone "Reamt¢calpt
4JtSI
• vtkl� Fi�gUuhd"
�yy
�Q
tidja�nt to humba%
!
y
iilE
grq�.
OYMO calllfTC
�
brseraor) ` ,
7 :County Cdttez: brave:
(Stmt or P.O. Bao:)
' A'MilleFlo Cjse Orovilles
CA 95965
I - 0 21,
(ty, state, and 'Cock)
• SF',?i11Git:, e�lnliletb 11emt 1 j,FWla 3., •�
p "Aad YOUt sddtW Ill thi 41t1}" *h N ib"' losimAw.
/ i« I ha fptltlWiag scrdais tcqueste ,tchcck osle)
4 XXZ6 lto.whoin and date dcllvezea. �
CI ShistV to wkan r�itozsd,iddrese b(dolircry «...�:
V .
D ;];145 RICTED DELiftkY
LMR
°D ' Shop is whiim aad d•te dctivcred ..,..c..:..=:; �
Mid* fa'vihom, datol'�ilct'aslaiiesi of detivery,S
(cok SmT PoSTitilAS tR 008 Fll j�
3, ,ARTICLE'AObh=9bTOt
xkay iblinson,, Jr.
0. Box 1700
m Chico, CA 95927
l 3. ARTICLE bES'CRIPTIONt
iy :RtGiStthEbNd, cWnFI6b Nd..` INSIARF D N0:
656725
fl (13,IwmVa obialn, slung „ ro of addresxes of oven)
MI have re fele cioiNid above
GNAiUFla CIAd nth of agent
t
w►TE OR p{G
Is.• AnDnEs�.s t }cce ally Ii n►iplaMed �.�'
UNABLE TO DEUVER.t1ECAUSEIMALS
- 1:
C F!/
r
} GPO.1,1979-M440
� GER�IFI�D MAIL
0 S�Q �OR tNjER 1 110N�L MAILp�
ti
RAY 1"So'a, Jr.
NO.
h:A��iyylyy i tl�GV FES .wr+.�",� . ,a
4 4eti.C�
Sp GtA1 i�1rU\l W
+� „ FESrtRICYEti 6EUVF.RY
to
Wtib`� Rio bAtE a
I'd 7 o�WfRct
N0ut DAiE'At11k
K1M pl1U DD1f
to WIiB R[SIRICIE�
50t0WN bARYW H
W mixG4l�iAi
�' 74TAt, C�OSiAG'� ANp FEES �
{,pS11AAgK
OR VATE
�, j
x
�?
z ..,.0
Za
0
z
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER ORLVE OKOVILLEr CALIFORNIA 05765
PHONE. 53-1•4601
December 8, 1981
Ray E. Johnson, Jr
Devcor Inc.
P. Cl. Box 1700
Chico, CA 95927
RE: Rezone to PA-C
14 Mile House, Inc.
AP 63-01-02 (ptn)
Log ' 81-1.014-0
Dear it r . Johnson:
We have completed the initial Study 0,C potential environmental
roposed land impacts related to your pd division, The results of
oi>r evaluation are explained in the enclosed inial study check
list, Appendix "prr
B1 cause Of potentially s i<gni 171cant environmental impacts , panic-
tlla '1y growth inducement ;incl culnul.at ive e C rce is , an impact report
is required pursuant to the rec}uLreluents of the California En-
vironmental Quality Act.
, Rej j cation of the
require that
rotes Basttheoappl cant,osubmit1info 'ma CLi>{�lin the ,Corm of a draft
'
y , pp
'E.1 R. Ji_th"n 225 days from the elate o,l' ceccipt of this notice
t that. an is required, 11=e 'require a depos:i.t of the estimated
processing prior to CinallZing your submitter}
costs of F.Z R. y Y I E. completeness of the
material submitted. The customary minlmLlml co for projects
draft, This cost May var de �encln on the deposit
o E this type is $500.00. When the project 1 s completed, the will
rotund anv unused, remainder or 'bill you Coir any costs In excess
of those depositeds
If you iqish to appeal the requirement for preparation of an. F.1.R,
you may .file a written protest specifying the reasons therefor
with the Planning Department, This must be clone within IS days
from the date of this 'notice `L E no written protest is timely
filed, an L.,,I.R. still be required,
Ray E. joh.nson, Jr.
-AP 63-01-02 .(ptn)
Pale 2
December g, 1981
The E. I .R. should lu1in acldross 111 the iitducementpandsthcentif.'Od on
cu iulative
the checklist, including g7 oj�tll
impacts . Project alternatives should be Cul'1y explored a n the
Br t, R. Also, the E.I.R. ss�ithatld discuss could reducel4nPvi� ronnenta:li n
lend usee
Coatures of :Future
impacts
SineerelY,
William R. Sands
Associate planner
wRS : lkt
I; rt c
ce lis l:��nde � sor► Rolls
_. oma
Y
•" '• r PLANNING GoMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE — oROVILI.C, CALIFORNIA 95965
PNON EI 534.4601
October 2s7 1981,
14 Mile HOUSC3, Inc;
p. O. Box 1700
Chico, CA 95927
MRezone
- 82 4`?
y t;cnticnten -
This is to noti t`j� )�o�t th�i.t tine }t ime x errC:i"d your application
For n rezone From 'TNI -5 and Tt`�i�-?Cl to PAC to 77.1otiv tris development
32,
or 21residential'units, located on the dist si'O Or lIi�hvtt�°
tpl7 ro imntcl}r 1'2 mil �s south or Forest E��,:cll, 1 (l iqi l.cs northcn5 t
oI C11iC�o,[ C.�q1
�n ini t i �y1 study o r Potent i a1 ons=ironmenta l coitsecluenc:es
antii ipated in connection with: this Project pis ficin,; coml�'lcte(i
Icy the Butte Co�i'nt)Y Planning ➢cPg1` tnleI t .incl 1�� i 11 lio f ot`�va r�lccl
to you.
�il�o>I:lcl You Iri.ve ��r7�clttcst 011. ievctrd ng thio IK-Ittet°, please
1'c(,l lice to contact this Officc.
i.
D i Tet 01, of Planning
13131'lt
+iw l K..syr, 4FIFYM
'
T{bY9 N, ' C T;i14'341jCJd✓iiM.'4KIM Fv
a� 9�t $k w c�
IRRIGATION MAj�T+ER
axr,so d e
Yj pl 14.'Dist"
„
Y
Butte Wate—r Dd+F.+
. _ q 'R��,. r •�.iiw �4'rp�
�µi��iL7,.G4i1+ WtJ. � Y^ �� �� b
C7rov-il:l,e-:W1� .andi- Irv. Dist.
p
i �F V�qq t tt
+� �� it
ry-�jf� 7+� (yam
all8 t� se JwriMV A�iOt'b
Q�%rFr �7
� Y 1�1aA w' +� dl 1.r
y}�4'j+ lig�(( �] ��{{y�j ^�
A�lvNw�./ • l.F �.ir. r Y .11r W rt R
Table Mn. Ipp. Dist*
y
tF i po4a iOu DCPtp
a 4r
WATER
ION6A;�ITL1:
& g Ds.
40
reo »
Freex Waterh
mixtuolwater, Go •
Areo 11 0 1J 4 Dist.
w Wm••AUq}y
&- ap4k Dist'.
�1�iho.��L.idFhril
piver Rec.r
paradise Reor �Ci `�r'k� tr
e ea tall
-A lxtFpC��h.:.iQ.
�JL
`�G Park �Dist a
.�1t
print op or e
p
..,�e
r
state Vish � txsme Dot,
water 4 t'.
SCqJ00L, DIS' TRICTS
hex a�. s (LOU. Slane
Tlea
But;e Oommutd: C ��y,l{e�1k1 �y
,VL1q-,' Rayieh yituar
Wa,l (41kan ll 1SO-
hoo s
.
V`nn� BWvyn County VupG
�yVy�Y�rJty fif,
V
�Ml
r l Yarm UkbOr 091p
Durham �iWf--, e�,l
_
✓a�ren�� tZ.st4�
.
�i eathe.r Falls UM-0n
tLgvf1jia 0.0, water mst*
�..i �.
Ovo ��Gl Feather U ��o M
t Pe r.
1lu�
:Oidla, ? . h
Lt�f�U4'�M�n. `ti►�l.��
�n4Ly7 «e4w� Ws�t
WW�
�e
�4.Ao
�,•�
GklrWR+
*MJ�w WhM�✓
j*rj�c
r�
tdii�{�.ka�i.p'�ti�
d�M YV".?.Or.�ryryewRall LS'�iwyrRi,,d.jYRich
eull.',w+4i le
Rtjqykh\w Y1iY�
VawRmV
an 'ji:vitig Waters
Vplermo Uhl on
Ui1Ioll
t'�1e
.rl«'.��
�l£'���1�5�.ito f
1 �y g �ss
T��Mr4'a W�W liiq+'1ae',4, rlSa�A
4+..,
'{,�' �s*� �slypq yt y�yy y
q %m tC �+ �F 1T 6M wF'aI V� 47luir�d x IAL
�t}�{ �eµryyti
_•f+Vrr. Yr•� S , "I Dist*
Burbank�
*a
�%a
11"�
?wr�ti�4l i.�„
iA
Sksny iy43U0W VISA
r q� P. jSaver NO t d tea :,t• .
'J
./WTYw+Ri °'�r4 ^''v�mM � R. gfy t,°�,��Fi, �`J:.��•�,�!rr.:+�,'�'�`. °.t�.�...,7 t.r$
iQ,tz
yw��rl,el 8 N� �+ -
c y a t A:r e a �G,
*
4�y���au r
v,lw,130UJQfit 14AP
*FFA §' S r "
py
ate
oy�tyyy}� l4iiiw J l }u DG'p t
fw W'f �'":r-,M',='tlk•` i�yye4.tfi}✓.'may 1+y''M�yhf: 17i. :L r a i+w Ib,
y{y 1
�{t {+ C`f.7 W i y�v �y
�"
�1 N�«.lw w 1.«�.1Aa V..L L✓e
w ski ' �h; tx
0 Fire x q
a ua%e tu`"�' `� 4 �� '�� €lily mel
wFk='YR.9iMl4FlY'i:'1['{Mk..S�'
9�oM County
AUIt,
e"Atak::.ik:=Mlue+XL�a.'M.!!w*9�'cnri°�+""r.wxrmsr"'"+uture:'.Msda'�'U}+^IW�,a+'r:41
r
iM�IY"1�.'J.�` iy fMUi'.+k.:�Kt�YAf�'I.waa�:.'Af.91n'.wITFr"'...wribw:.!.•l:YM.:bt�uiaM'�.�": :�Wi.:M=+G=bN.*tp
F +tY�i+"y.Mw' Aix y�
4,r.0
�i� :,d .�..�Y+f �,ST r•� SFA M'
r4'y/.r�
BUTTE COL PLS ?PIG GGA tlIIsSI0�1
9596
% COUNTY CENTER LrtiVE OROVILLE,, CALIFORNIA
PHONE: 534--4601
,October 23, 19
Pat""
Calif, State- Hi htva DATE; 1
915 Pit RE : pEWEC PEVIE I AND
Chico, CA 95926
EI1i1 tClttC�9 it11'AL EIrALUATTION'
data otar office has received or generated concerning
lire iinina> y l4 rlil e House , Inc - . � 2
Snolosed i Inc-82
the following project;
�-om TT1- 5 and TM-20 to PAC to allow the devo l,opment o�
Rezone
east side of, 1•.1 ' ghlvay 5 2
'located an the ea
21 residentialunits,
approximately 1'� miles south of POT Ranch, 10 mhos -northeast
.AP 63-01 rt
We arty: maks ossi i l o- environmental impacts an tri1� be
`rt@; an assesstn.nL cif p Miti ated
�i Negative Declaration, to
preparing an environmental document, either
nv�roninehta impact Report.
1`legat�:ve Declaration or an
� � pinions
ideas for investigation or o
Please provide any factual statpma pts, 'they
or e%,pertise that relate 1.0 e�
Trott can offer' in yolt area of concern
paats that this projech may geetr►t.
socia or etMonotnc
,
please respond 'within '14 flays of the above-noted date, 5f no response is
116 ;L be assumed that then(* are tits
I;enerat c by tiiar inquiry) then it
m I;t�c pt�o jt~ot.
cal_. �im�sactrr, tv%,..cl�t are �acstont�i.sn'i, from
rtttf4,
tigniTicafttr envira 0
We appreciat e arty of �nie. `ince yu4! c , nrcvide . lCom100
��• 1'ra�tn�iynr
- putty
erel y 1
�i0i111$
f r ; '�
David 'G'olland, Planner T
lAk—
Com
(1; -Vite or typo 'in space' provided v re lArtt
PU*1MG COMMISSION
BUT) E COUNTY
7 COUNTY CENTER DkIVE - OROVILLEj CAL,ir-ORN 1A 95965
PHONE.! 534-4601
TO, Butte County Environmental October 23, 1981
Health IZE: PROD, GT GT PEVIS4 AND.
r,.M11TPnrimEMTAL EVALUTION
tnolosed is preliminary data olir office has receivel Or gencrated concerning
14 rJilc House. Inc. 82-42
the following project'
Rezone from TJJ-5 and TM -20 to PAC to allallowt'!-,e. development of
— --------------
21 residential units., located on the east side of Highway 32,
approximate I ly III miles south of Forest Ranch, 10 111iles northeast
0 co P 6s-01-02
We are making an asse8amenz of possible environmental impacts and will be
pronaring an environmental documenti either a Negative Declt,.-ahiort, Mitigated
Negative Declaration or an rnviroamental impact Report.
Please provide any Tactual statements, ideas for investigationj Or Opinions
you can. offer in your area .f concern Or expertise that relate to either
physical, social, or economic impacts that this -project VAY Fenorate.
Please respond 'with Ln 14 days of the above -noted date. if no response is
by this inquiry, then it shall bo asnar.vd that there are no
ts wl(ich pat-ential filom 010 PrOje-Ot-
Signiticant envirf� 1111101- impao
We appreticl you can provide.
,to any assist: y
Sinn.erelyj Buffo Co. Planning Comm.'Utto of a. health
NOV 41Q81 OCT 23 I'do
orovaoi CA09rare, oroville, C611fdrnla
David Bolland,
Comments
OCT 2 71 J)
,a ins tee atotritle €x turn this st"J" *,)callforhld
V
s)
i
r
-
r
w
�� /
Gd
670—Pllz .
FILE No:
BUTTE
COUNTY
µ
PLANNING
C O�IMlS�ION
WEARING __ DATES,
��c y' �, r �
A,PPLICANT.
OVVNI:W
ZONES
��
SCALEEXISTING
COUNTY OF BUTTE
(N vV1Int1/ Center Drive w
Oaoville, Califfonnia .95965
7.
/�
OFFICE OF p ) ) v
PINNING COMMISSION1{�l ► ti a yd
" Ul•° {+:nl. "l.,,t"~. �� (11.yC.}l��{�,wy�'al.�l� "'
NO't ilwt » I w
,7 A. Parr
1865 E. nth Street ,
Chico, CA 95926 +�
y +
' AP C3-01-102
1
NOTICE