Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
82-42 REZONE FROM TM-5 & TM-40 TO PAC 4 OF 7
r, CHECKLIST OF VASCULAR PLANTS THAT WERE IDEPTIFIAB..U' OCTOBER 102 1980, DURING TIM SURVEY FOR RXRE AND ,ENA UGERED 1SPECIES, ON THE RAY JOHNSON e PROPE;RTY9 FOURTEEN MIIS HOU uE BUTTE :COUNTY, CUiFORNIA, ,COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Trees, Shrubs and `Vi.nes Yellow pine Pinus 'onderosa Digger pine Pix�uo ;sabinisna Manzanita Arctoatap lqs rnanxan� tm Pale manzanita Arctostaphylos vi scida Buckbrush Ceanothus cuneatus Coffeebdrry Rhamnub calif ornicus California bay Umbellularia californica Yerba santa Eriodictyon californicum Eedbud Cerci:s occidentalis Wild lilac Ceanothus integerrimus California black oak quercue kelloggii Blue Oak guarous d, oMlae Scrub oak Quataus d=bsa Poisork oak _ Toxicodendron di.versilobum Honeysuckle Lonioara op. Pitcher sage Lepachini.a oalye na Silk tassel bush Garrya,fremontii Snowberry SaEhoricar_pos rivularig Blackberry Rubus urninus Buckthorn Rhmmaub croceuo Toyon. Heteromeles arbutitolia Cottonwood Pc►_ pulub f'remont .i SquawbusYi Rhui trilobata Bush monkeyiflower Himulum bifidus Oletnatis Clemati® lasiantha Mountain mahogany _carcocarpus betuloides Grasses Wild oats AV621% app, FeocUe Yul ina epi 'Bunch grass Buhlenbex is rens. COMMON NAME SCiENTIFIG NAME Grasses (continued) Soft chess Bromus mollis ;. Foxtal chess Bromus rubens Cheat grass Bromus tectorum Rescue grass Bromus catharticus Nit grass Gastridium ventricosum Hairgrase Airs, cargophyllea Annual hairgrass Deochampsia danthonioides' Squirreltail grass Sitanion lkystrix Small rattlesnake grass Briza minor Do tail rase g g C,ynosurus echinatus Mediterranean barley ° Hordeum h stria, Beardgrass Pdlypogon monspeliensis Other Herbaceous Plante Turkey mullein BremocarPua ;_setigeruo Star thistle Centaurea solstitialis Thistle _ Cireiuna sp Curly dock Rumex orispus Horehound MMarru-�bium vulEare Big heronbill Brodium bots s PLtrsh's lone Lotus Purshieunus Small -,'lowered lotus Lotus micranthus Tumble mustard Sisabrium officinalo Grass pinks KobIraxiachia velutina Willow herb lobium op. Common hedge; parsley Torilia heterop ylls, kiotted hedge penaley Toril o nodosa Hooker's plantain Plantago hookerianri California knotweed PolYAoqUM calitornicum Bidwell's knotweed PolUon= bidWelliae c6ttonweed Micros daliforn cue California eoaproot Chlorogalum pomeridibtum Agosetio A -ods op Smooth datis ear Iypochoorio Alabra -47" G V h " y COMMON NABS SCIENTIFIC NAME; Other Herbaceous Plants (continued) Small -flowered dwarf flax Hesperalinon mieranthum Hedge nettle St&Jhya sp, Woolly sunflower Hriophyllum lanatum Coyote mint Monitrdella ap, Clarki;a Clarkia ap. .Purple godetia ClarkiaRuEpurea Wild iris Eris hartwegii Bedstraw Galium sp i'at as I bedsty Galium, p_erisiense Nuttall'a bedstraw Galium nutt'allii Goldenrod Solidago sp Ratctlesnake weed Daucus,puaillUa Bracken Ptnridium,aquilinum Blue dicks Diehelostemma pulehell.a Many -flowered brodiaea Dichelostemma multiflora Harvest brodiaea Brodiaea ale ans Grass.nuts Triteleia laxa Skullcap spy Thin -stemmed navarretia Navarretia filicaulis Navarretia Na�varratia sp. Western meadow rue Isopyrum occidentals Mistletoe Fhoradeharoh flavescena Filago Filmo sp. Madia Mad a sp Snakeroot Senicul s bipinnata Tillaea Tillaea erecta Rosa clover Trifoliuk hirtum Tomcat clover Trifolium tridentatum, Cowbag 'clover Trifoliuia _depauperatun 8mallhead clovor Trifoliura mi.crocephal.um Clover Trifolium sp. Pitch's spikeweed Htisizohia Titdhii Tarwedd Grinadli.a caul orum Tarwoed Cttlypadenia acabrolla 7. COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Other Herbaceous Plants continued Wild sweet Asea Lathyrus latifolius Lessingia tessingia nemaclada 'Mild buckwheat tripgonuum nudum Cent'aury Centcurium flotibundum Beautiful centaury Cent_aurium venuatum. Prickly lettuce Twctuca aerriola Hansen's clubmoso Selaginella hanseni Vallgy tassels Ortho: argue attenuates Johnny tuck Orthocarpus erianthud Beggar gilia Microateri.s gracility Indian pink Silene californicu Goldback fern Pityrogramma tria�laris Holt rock penstemon Penratemon deustub Purdy's penstemon Penattmon heterophylla varyup rdyi Supine Lu inus sp. Salisfy Tragopogon op. Dudleys _ Audle .a Symosa _ Western morning glory Calystegia;occidentalis Checker mallow Sidalcea sp Cattail Typha latifolia HorseWeed Co cm cann"Oneis I,00seatri-fe i�yrthrum spy Umbrella sedge C crud craroatie Rush J'uncue op. Cinquefoil potontilla ep. Dodder Ciieouta op. Aster Aster tip. Wild. onion Allium ERIectena Douglas' sandwort A onari APPENDIX 5 WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST'S REPORT RAY JOHNSON PROPERTY -PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Habitat Description The area is upper foothiil habitat with patches of grassy area, chapparral, oak forest, pine forest, and mixtures of those vegetation tyres. The western edge of the property is dissected by kllghway 32. East -and west sides of the property drop precipitously into canyons. The proposed development site is on the relatively flat area bordering Route 32. An Intermittent stream traverses part of -the eastern development site. Value as Wildlife Habitat The value of the area as wild!i'fe habitat varies as does the habitat. The diverse structure of -the land and vegetation provides for an assortment of niches. First in importance are the areas with mature trees. The trees provide food (acorns, pine nuts) for numerous animals as well as shelter in the forms of :tree cavities, perches, and nest sites. They also provide protection from environmental factors since trers provide shade, diminish wind, and retard or prevent erosion. Trees help to retain soil and atmospheric moisture0 making the habitat more suit able for other plant as well as animal species. Pine forests provide different kinds of food and habitat benefits for wildlife than do oak forests; pines and oaks are each relatively more important to certain animals, e.g. squirrels prefer acorns to pine nuts, but their overall wildlife value is probably simllar. Chapparral is composed of brush which Is primarily evergreen and produces berry- like frul#s. It typicailly, as it doss here, grows 1n dense stands which provide excdllent cover and food for small and large mammals. Signs of deer were abund- and through the chapparrai; trails, deer beds, and heavily browxed buck brush (Ceanothus sp.) were evident. ChapparrM provides ample food and cover for birds as well and a large number of birds Were seen In It. The open grassy areas al,j of Ieast value to wildlife, but they are of some value as dense grass does harbol- a number of species of an'imais and provides a good supply of limited kinds of food, Star thistle and wild oats Yield abundant seeds which are eaten by some species of seed�eating birds and rodents. Dense grass provides nest sites for blyds such as Meadowlarks and Is inhabitated by large numbers of pocket grophers and m1ce. The small Intermittent streomthi'�', 'Pr'averses part of the grassy area east of the highway appears to be Important iR, wildlife. The ehtlre area is very dry during the summer and fall; -the only source of open water seems to be the small shallow 1 pools In parts of the stream bed. Around these pools was abundant bird 'life using the water for drinking and bathing. 0eer tracks were abundant and a deer was even nearby. Genera( WildIIfo Observations Deer beds} trails, and browxe are very evident; the deer population in this area seems to be large. Ample evidence of other mammal activity was found such as burrows, tracks and/or Seats of skunks, 1"acc6ons, squirrels, rabblts,. rats and grophers. Large numbers of wintering oi~ migrating birds were soon to wSO j; use the area; breeding populations of birds would probably be smaller. There are probably no endangered vertebrates in the area; this Is not suitable habitat for Said Eagles, for instance. No fish Inhabit the area, A list of vertebrates most likely to 'inhabit the area follows, Those marked by an asterisk: were actually observed during the field studies Amph(bian5 California Newt (Trxicha,torosa) Ensatina (Ensatina sp.) teal1fernia Slender Salamander (Batrachosep's attenuatus,) Western Toad (Bufo bareus) Pacific Treefrog'(Hyla regi_ ia') Reptiles #Western Fence Lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) Gilbert Skink (Eumeces 2ilberti) Alligator Lizard (Gerrhonotus s2. Carter Snake (Thamnophis p..) Gopher Snake (Pituophis catenifer) Common Kingsnake 'Lampropeltiseta uius) W. Rattlesnake (Crotalls v r-tdts) Birds *Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Osprey (Pand'lon haliaetus)' *Sharp-sid need Hawk (Accipiter strlatus Coope"r'S Hawk (Acct p Iter ,too er1 l) Feed--shou I dered Hawk (Bu�teo .1 i neatus.) 4%d -tailed Hawk (,Buteo jamaicensis) #Am: Kestrel (Fa�Ico sparyerlus) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus) *Callfornla Quail (Lophortyx californicus') Common Turkey (Me_ Iea�rtsallopao) ,5'i Birds (Continued): *Band=tailed Pigeon (Columba fasciata) *Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Screech Owl (Otus asio) Great Horned Owl (Bubo virginianus) Common Nighthawk (Chordalles minor) Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus) Annals Hummingbird (Calto anna) *Common Flicker (Coloptes auratus) Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (,Spitiyrapicus varlus) Hairy Woodpecker (Dendrocopos villosus) Downy Woodpecker (Ddhdrrocopoq pubescons) NuttalI's Woodpecker GI,Ppldes nuttaiIii) Lewis' Woodpecker (Meiyher,Be�. I awls) Ash-throatej Flaycatc;her (Myiarchus cinerascens) 011ye-sided Flycatcher (Nuttaihornis-borealls) *Western Wood Pewee (Gonto�us sordidulus) Western Flaycatcher (Em+pidonax dlfflcllls) Tree Swallow (lrldoprocne bicolor) *Common,Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) 48crub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens) *Steri ler's Jay (P�anocltta ste�cl *Plain Tltmouse (Panus inornatus) *Bushtit (Psaltrlparus minimus) *Wrentlt (Chamea fasclata) White-broasted Nuthatch (Sitta carollnensls') Brown Creeper (Cer1h a famiIlarls) *Bewlck's Wren (rhryomanes; bewlckl i House Wren (Trogiodytes agdon _4A Birds (Continued): California Thrasher (Toxostoma rediyi'yum) Mockingbirds (M,i`mus polyglottos) *Am. Robin (Tardus m gratorius) Varied Thrush (ixoreus naeyius) Hermit Thrush (Catharus uttata) Ruby -crowned Kinglet (kegulus calendula) Cedar Waxwing (Bomb ciIis cedrorum) Yel loin-ri;nipted Warbler (Dendroica ccronata) *BL revie 's Blackbird (ELihagus cyanocephalus) Western Meadowlark (Sturhella necJlecta) Black -headed Grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus) *Rufous -sided Towhee (Piet to erythrophthalmus) *Lark Sparrow (Chondesfes grammacus) Chipping Sparrow (Spizella_passerina) Sang Sparrow (MeiosplZaL melodla) *'White -Crowned Sparrow (Zonotrichla leucophrys) Goldeh-CroWhed Sparrow Qohofrichia atricapIIIa) bark -eyed Junco (Junco alken) Evening Grosbeak (Hesperiphonayespertina) #House Finch (Carpodacu5 mexicanus *Amerlcan Goldfinch (Carduerlls tri'stis) #'Lesser Goldfinch (Carduel i`s 'sal iiia) Mammals Shrew (So�ex sp,) Oafs (M of i s sL. Black -Mailed Jackrabbit (Lo us califoreicus) Cottontail Rabbit (Sy�iyil�us audubonli) *brush Rabbit (Sy:lvllagus.bachmahl) 53 , a y li Mammals (Continued) CA Ground Squirrel (Citellus beeche i) 4CA Gray Squirrel (Sciurus riseus) White-footed Mice (Perom scus sp.) Wood Rat (Neotoma fuscipes) Meadow Mice (Mlcrotus sp.) Coyote (Carts latrans) Gray Fox (Uroc on cinereoargenteus) Black dear (Ursus americanus) Ring --hail (Bassariscus astutus) Spotted Skunk(Spiibgale utortus) *Striped Skunk (Mephitis mephitis) *Pocket Gopher (Thomom s 62.) Mountain Lion (Fells concolor) Bobcat (LM rufus) #Mule deer (Odocolleus hem'ionus) Sugqot.tqd Mltlgatlon Measures There are a number of measures that can be taken to reduce the impact on wildlife by the prop ed development. 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, the fairly level forested area that could conceivably be developed should be left untouched, if passible, if not; then development should occur with removal of the fewest number of trees. Besides providing wildlife `habitat, trees buffer the effects of the clirrnate, stabilize the soil, and retain moisture -all beneficial to human Inhabitants of the area Trees and shrubs near the highwayare particularly important in stabilizing the soil and attenuating the traffic bolse-beneficial to both people and wildlife: `frees and shrubs 'lining the ridge of the canyons on both east and west sidkt should also remain to help prevent eroSian. 2. The Intermittent stream coursing through the grassland should be maintained tri some way at It seems to be an Important source of water for wildlife. M REFERENCES 131air, WF. et. a1. 1957. Vertebrates of the United States. McGraw Hi 11 Book Co. N.Y. Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenhe'ider 1964. A Field Guide to the Mammals. Houghton - Mifflin Co. Boston. Hopi•, V. 1962. Keys for the Identification of Wild Flowers, ferns, Trees, Shrubs, and Woody Vines of Northern California. National Press Books, Palo Alto, CA. Ingles, L. 1954. Mammals of California. Stanford University Press. ' Manolln,y T, adhinBcoWebb. 1979. A Checklist of Butte Co. Birds. Altacal Audubon SocietMartin, A.C.► H.S. Zim, and A.L4 Nelson. 1951. American Wildlife and. Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. hover Publications, N.Y. Palmer, E.L. and H.S. Fowler. 1975. Fieldbookof Natural History.McGraw-Hill Book Co., N.Y, bobbins, et. al. 1918. Birds of North America. Golden Press, Now York. Small,, A. 1474. Birds of California. Winchester Press`, New York. Stobblhgi L. 1958, A Field Guide to the Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton - Mifflin Publishers, Boston. Storer, T. I . and R.L. Us i nger. 1963. Sierra Nevada Natural History. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. r X55 Dr. Albert J Beck 114 West 7th Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Dear Dr. Beck, At your request on October 17c 20, 1980 7 conducted an arc aeolo-ioal reconnaissance of approximately 22'$ acres of land owned by Ray E. Johnson? et al,. The property is located along both sines of Highway 32, approximately 2 miles south. of Forest Ranch and is a portion of the W2 of Section 18, T. 23 N., R. 2 E. Paradise Quadrangle, 19' series. The ropn_sed project for the property is for ousing cluster evelopment. The property Pies along the east side of the.ridge between Big Chico Greek and little Chico Greek. The western portion of the property is along the top of the ridge and the terrain is relat,'t y level with a low hill in the northwest corner. The eas 1 iortion of the property covers the steep canyon wall alor: te west; side of Little Chico Greek. The vegetatim '' the property consists of oak, pine, manzanita, cru d annul ,asses. A . lar � ien meadow :�s orae 1,. e sou , w s ern portion • e property amid a small spr ":s located on the property alongTo upper edge of tanyon. Prior to r .Neconnaiasance of the property T consulted the archaec-lo al site record files maintained at California State Univ"�sity, Chaco to determine if any archaeological sites had been previously recorded for the, pro erty area r ith'ti th Emile 4 to .t eviou erc iaeo ogice,l or ` � "cars a. ' NRdPteen r@c�arrde 1° vI in or adjacent to the property boundariesj My reconnaissanc of the property was complete in that all. areas of the property that appeared likely to contain materials 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 proparty 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 property, one is a prehistoric site consisting of *two small. bedrock mortaps, and the other is an his•to!ric site consisting of the foundation and associated features of Fourteen Mile house. October 27 1980 The prehistoric site is signif icantin that it is the f first and only known prehistoric site recorded along the top of this ridge, Prehistoric sites have been recorded in both Big Chico and Little Chico Creels Canyons, but this is the only evidence identified so far that the aboriginal people also occupied the ridge top. The site is located twenty meters to the south of a spring and this was undoubtedly the major attraction for these people. The mortars holes themselves are very small and indicate that only a limited amount of activity took place at the site. The site was mapped and . OAi ;girded during my reconnaissance and no -further, mitigation measures are required for this site. The US.G.'S. topographic map for the area prepared in 19,3 shows the location of Four -been Mile House as being on the west side of Humboldt Road, just off of the property area. Since this map has bc:un prepared Highway 32 has been constructed, which does not follow the alignment of Humboldt Road, but according to the map the site would be to the west of Highway 32 also. My inspection of the property determined that the site of Fourteen Mile House as indicated on t)je U. S. G. S. topographic map is in error and that it was located to the east of both Humboldt Road and Highway 324 Evidence supporting this conclusion comes from two sources, the actual field inspection which resulted in finding a large stone Foundation on the property area and showed that no such structure had ever existed at the Location shown on the topographic inap, and from information obtained from a local informant, who riamembered when the st-ucture was still intact. .Duringmy inspection of the property l was able to briefly interview her. Claud L. Willis, who was ?drilling a well on the property. Mr. Vil.lis has been a long time resident of the area and owns the property adjacent to the northern Project boundary. He informed me that the stone foundation east Of Highway 32 was indeed the site of Fourteen Male House. According to Mr. Willis the building was constructed in thti 1800s as a wagon stop by the Rumboldt Road. Company The first w,il.l gate along the road was originally across the road at this point but was later moved a short distance UP the road becaua." a bypass road constructed around the toll ;;ate. He remeanbero 'the structure as being two stories high surrounded by a 'uritis Porch around the lower level: and that the building had a shUUI;'w basement, The ceiling of bhe Lower level was approxir,, tti.4:7 twelve feet high. He also remembers two buildings,abrye.ted with the house, a barn and a slaughterhouse that wa";iwter used as a school house, where Mt,-. W1.1,l.is attended seg; c 1. Both of these structures were destroyed. when Highway r�..�„ constructed, �b7 October 2", 1980 'age 3 A man named. Sp:-_res sold the house to x' �,nie Lucas, in the 1890s, and Mr. Lucas lived at the site until the 194,Os 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 improved with a cement basin and wager was carried to the house through a pipeline, 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 pieces of metal were found to be scattered down the side of the canyon in this area. Mr. Willis remembers that the meadow surrounding the foundation was planted in various grain crops and a number of fruit trees are still located around th!, meadow. Three cement tubs were found adjanent to the foundation and Mr, Willis thinks they were -Inally from the slaughter house, he does remember that tht .,jre later lased as septic tanks for a toilet added f;o the house on the porch. Most of the mater, al 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 looal area and he should be more thoroughly interviewed its the near future, One other feature associated with the site was found along the West side of Highway 32, this was a short section of wagon ruts wot.j into the hard matrix of the volcanic mud- flow, These ruts reprosFnt'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 39. Since there is very little potential forgaining additonal 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 if possible the dloturbatx4e of tI.e house foundation be avoided during ny October 27, 1980 Page 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 :Stats ,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 i istox'^al Resources Commisisiorx. It is therefore recommended that prior 'to granting archaoological clearance for the project area the features associated with Rourteen Mile House be accurately ,napped and photographed by a qualified -archaeologist and that 4n.. attempt should be made to designated the site as a "California Point of i 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. Sincerely yours, James P. V Mahniri -Archaeology Cor;:sul.tant APPENDIX 7 INITIAL STUDY . ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST OrN1 be completed by Lead Agency) (To fit -42 , D Lof� 81-10-14-03 �P 9 63-01-02 (ptn) BACKGROIJ14D 1, Nagle of Proponent_ Ray . Johnson, J1'. 14 Mile E-[ous'e, Ino. 2. Address and Phone Number oj: Proponent: Devcor Inc. Ro.119, Anderson and Rolls , ox �-`Tir Street . ch oo, CA 95927 ChxCdA 9 26 o;--- 3. Date of Checklist Submitted,-- 4, Agency Requiring Checklit;t � Proposal,., ifappl'l.ca , e zone a an 5, Name of Tentative Subdiv sion Ma- lI , ENVIRO MENTAL I14PACTS all "Yes" and "maybe" answers are required (ptions of on attached sheets.) YES MAYBE NO 1, Earth. 147,1.1 the proposal result: in significant a. Unstable earth Condit;' ons or in sub8truttures7 changes in geolcgit b, Disruptions, di.splacemants , com- soi o f the l? -�— pact�a.on or overcc,verng --- C. Change in topography or ;round star- removal of C face relief features or topsoil?" d: Destruction, coveringor modfica- rr� uni ue ologic off. tion of any q physical features? e, 'Increase j,11 wind or water erosioei off the site's of soiis, dither on Or 3 E. Chati;e. in dapositiOt or erosion in silty - of beach cli sands, ar changes r, tion, deposition or erO iowhich m;y modify the channel of a river or or st e -a of the bed of the ocean 'Lake? any bay, inlet or g. Loss Of prime d9ridulturdlly Prot deslgna0ed ductive soils outside urban areas? -6d- Apptlix F =_.page E `� o y YDS MAYBE NO h. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,; mudslides, ground failure, _ or 8iml.lar hazards? 2. Air.. Will the proposal result iris a. Substantial deterioration of r ambient or local air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors, smoke or fumes? c. Significant alteration of air movement, moisture or tempera'turci or any change in climate, either � locally or regionally?'' .3. Water. 14111 the proposal result in substantial: a. Changes in currents, or the course`e or direction of water movements? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of ', surface crater runoff? c, gleed for off-site surface drainage improvements, including vegetation removal, channelization or culvert " installation! a. Alterations to the course oz flora AIN of flood waters?• e. Change in the amount of surface G water in any water body? E. Discharge into surface waters, ;or S n any alteration .of surface water quality; including but not limited to tempetatureo dissolved oxygen or turbi.di:t4.? g. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? h. Change in the quantity or quality of ground graters, either through. direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by alts or exdavations? �. Appendix V page 2 of 9 YLPS MAYBE NO i:, Reduction in the amount of water otherwise, available for public water supplies? j. t posure of people or property to water. related hazards such as flooding? � o 4 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal'result in substantial: a, Loss of vegetation or change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plarts (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants)? , b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? C. Zntrpduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d„ Reduction in acreage of, any agri- cultural crop? w 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal: result in substan lal a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any speo:es of animals (birds, 16.nd &Aimals including reptiles, fish and shell- fish, benthic organisms, insects or miarofauna) ? b. Rs °uctiort df the numbers of any un�te, rave or endangered species of animals? , c, lnt,toduction of new species of anaaIs into art area, or result in a t --tier to the migration or mov�.ment of animals? d, Red i,.!tILon of, encroachment upon, or deterioration to existing fish or will Life habitat? CI Appendix F - page 5 of 5 -- YES MAYBE NO 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in ' -� ubstantials a, Increases in noise levels? b. Exposure of people to teavere noise levels'? 7. Light and Glare, Will the proposal. produce H—gn—'-i:cant light or glare? ^� S. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a significant: a. Alteration of the planned land use of an area, or esta'bli5h a 'trend which will demonstrably lead to such JV alteration? ' b. Conflict with uses on, adjoining properties, or conflict with establi_hed recreational,, educa- tional, religious or scientific uses of an area? 9. Natural. Resource -s, All the proposal. resu t i.z substantial: a, IDemand for, or increase in the raise of use of any natural resources? t; 5epletion of any nonrenewable natural. resouree7 �.. 10. Risk of qgL! t . Does the proposal involve a riok of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to) oil.; Pest tides, chemicals or radiation, in -the event of an accident or upset x. conditions? 4 ll. 1'o ulatibn. Will the Proposal slp tii ficantly alter the location, distribution; density, or 9-tOWth i,a e of the human population of an area or physically divide an c' estab;lishod community? 12. (lou.s�i.�ng, Y-Iill the proposal si ;nx.r.j.cantly affect existing housi g or create a demand for additi+)na1 hou:irt .._._ �..._, -6Sw N...Fp endi.t F -- Page of ; p g b ,t: r YFIS 1AAYBB N0 13, Trans ortation/Circulation. Will the , proposes resuyt ins a, Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? u b " Significaht effects on existing or dAmsnd for Parking facilities, crew parking? c. 5ub8tant al impact upon existing ,M transportation s stem."? - ---- d. Significant alterations to prosent of circulation or movement patterns OF. people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne; rail or yy,, air traffic? f4 increase in traffic hazards to motor •, vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? IC Public S-ervices . Will the proposaJ. have result in a Substantial: an et ect upon, or need for new or Altered governmental services in Any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? 07 c, 8chools7 d, Part-.$ or other recreational facilities? - e# Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?f. -. other governmental services?' ..--- �-- 17ill the proposal result in; l5: Ener' p p Use of substantial amounts of fuel. r4 r C of energy? b. Substantia]. *Increase in demand upon t.isting sources of enet9y, Or regttire the development of new ,r sources of onetgYl Append. r "' Page 5 of 9 . . YES MAYBE NO 16. utilities, Will the proposal result in a need -for new systems, or sub- stantial alterations to the following uti.l:ities a. Power or natural gas? � b. Communications systems C. Water? d. Sewer (will trunlc line be extended, , providing capacity to serve new development) ? r` e. Storm water drainage? , 17, Human Health, Will the proposal result in a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health) b, 13'xposure of people to potential ., health hazards? 18, Solid 14aste. Will the prop result in any significant impacts a Heisted with solid waste disposal or li.tter control? 19, Aesthetics. Will the proposal result iii 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?::�a 20, Rocreaticn. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing public recreate tion facilit3l.es7 21. Archeological /Historical, Will the proposal result in an a teration of a significant archeologi.cal or historical site, structure, object ' .Y or building? Appendix p page 6 of 9 x F YES MAYBE NO ?2, Mandatory Findings of Significance.. a. Does thep>w'o j ed. t have the potential ' to degrade ,the quality of the environment, substantially reduce t' ie habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plaint or animal com- munity, reduce 'the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of r California history or prehistory? "^ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short term benefits to the detriment of publicly adopted U long-term environmental goals? .. c. Does the project have impacts which arc individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?' (a project may impacL On two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is sifnificant.) ,�... d noes the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings:, either directly or indii•ect'ly? _6 -ATVpehdI'X F page 7 of 0 III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRON148NTAL EVALUATION The proposed project is a tentative subdivision map and rezone request for a'planned development of. 21 single family lots. The 1.86 + acre project site is located on the eastern side of Highway 32 about 2 miles south of Forest Ranch and is a y)ort on of the W h of Section 18,T'.32N.,R.2E., M.D.B.�M. The site is identified as a portion of Assessor's Parcel. 63-01-02. The project site is° bounded on the west by Highway 32. Little Chico Creek approximately 2,000 feet to the east, runs along the eastern boundary. (See Figure 1.) The Butte County 'General Plan designations for the project site are Grazing and Open Land (minimum 40 acres per D/U) and Agricultural -Residential (,minimum one acre per D/U) The developer, Ray ,Johnson, ,7r. , has proposed that the: pa 4cel. be rezoned from TM -40 (1.53 + acres) and TM -5 (33 + acres) to Planned Area Cluster (hp- C) .� An exclusive development of custom-built homes as planned. T)ie proponent will develop 21 non-contiguous lots in an area of 1044 acres. The' 0.35 + acre lots will. be sold to individual buyers (See Pi1gure 2.) Lit 22 (11 acres) will remain as undeveloped pasture land. The remaining 165.2 acres will be left as common 111rea and will include a swimming pool., bathhouse, podostrian"path, and mini -storage facility. Also included in this acreage are the steep canyon walls of Little Chico Creek which 'will be left as notnaspartofThe this0pracres shown nt'Site cjectalthb gh9lotsmayPn be 2) are p space. developed under the current TM -5 zoning ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Development will tape plaice on the top of the ridge betigeeen Big and Little Chico Creeks. Elevations range from 1,950 feet at the southern part of the site to 2,100 feet in the northern portion. Slopes range from nearly Level in the open, grassyarea southeast of the highway to nearly vertical canyon tigalls. The project site is underlain by volcmnac mudflows of the Tuscan formation. Soils belong to the Toomes-Penta associ ition. Surface soil. averages 1-1h feet deep, with a subsoil of 1-5 feet. Below this is .1-6 feet of %genthered mudflo�,t rock of low permeability, Clay content varies from sparse to abund'Int. Little Chico Creek flows through the southenstorn portion of the sate, but is not within the area proposed for dowel opment. A spring and several ephemeral streams traverse the site:, Appendik F page 3 of 9 r-* 71t�t r�1 % •/�• �� �� r 1 • ! Apt. � � ,✓ r t ' I t S PROJECT SITE I � ''t� cif t t tt•t �,t ,AJ ,•': ,fart, 1 . � � 1 ltr` � � , i i ... s M r 1. 1 <: 't j J , �,.. r✓' r AV I • r� �v 11 ': •' :t 1'� �`rf rr a . • .r ", I�„d, r /. � f, +' �✓Yt '� ' •a i! !� I �" 1 Ir r r1� 1 A F r / / ]t .• y .04 1 11 i A • ,+, +Y t1 +„ ! ��r ! P�i ,✓�r , � A� �, � 1� �.+�,4�x1 '� ,yr � / � I � )J FIGURE 1 PROJECT VICINITY .1.! 1 + � �►il ���f � c � � 1i�� ✓ ' ✓ I . rw t w 1 ry�M,+ )� ! s it 1 ' 4000 • � ti ,j ��'F,. � 1 w it 1•",� \ t -6B— 4 ■ 1 �. . . . . . . . --- MiA �/. I: L 'Li d LL �. . . . . . . . --- ' ray x d The i'uscan Formation typically yi:eltls low tlows of water favorable locations fear wells are erratic and d[fficult to Ie located at the north of the predict. An on-site well y g• per ininute. meadow east of Hghwa 32 yields about 30 �.1Tons No lona-term temperature data ar �ivailatt�le for the pro ject area, but conditions are similar to thO-Se" .ln the Sacramento Valley. in Chico, the mean monthly high for July is 970F, wi_ti, summertime temperature.3 above 100°7 boinl; common. The mean monthly low for January is 360x', but temperatures in the twenties are not uncommon. Precipitation at the project site averages about 50 inches of rain ;per year, Light snowfalls occur rarely, .and melt rapidly. Aix quality in Butte County ,is relatively good, but national air quality standards for oxidants (smog) , carbon monoxide (CO) and suspended particulates are occasionally ex-- ceeded at some locations. The California Air l�esatii ces Board (ARB) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have designated Butte County as a nonattai..;nment area for these poll'ltants. The project site lies within a, transition zone between Yellow Pine Forest and Chaparral habitats .and contains ele-a merits of both. Sane major species of Yellow Pint Forest such ;h . cense cedar and -white fir are absent,Other as speciesrsuch as incense 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 i,hhi hn+ in•tererades with the Yellow pine Forest habitat and occupies a consi era e arta near to Qdge of the steep canyon walls. Typical species include buck= brush, toyon, scrub oak, manzanita, buckthorn and poison oak. Herb' Hooker's plan- ta�naCsmooth eous p�at,s ear, wild iris sand ewestern morning glory. A small area t,t riparian -habitat occurs in the vicinity or -the spring in the iu*r.thern portion of tate sit(-, and somewhat. Along the larger ephemeral streams. Vegetation in these areas is primarily herbaceous, andWding beardgrass, horseweedj cat- tails and monkey flowers. ' Several introduced species are loz;1:-ted vr;ar the F'our'teen Mile House site. These include Japanese quince 'bushes, peach trees, black locusts and black walnuts. Star thistle covers the two large open ake48 on both sides of the highway. i A rare plant survey Of the site was conducted in October 1980, Two so curponuLoti22s JusBtieastlOf ancexistingo enceum bidwell , ) and about 600 feet north of the southwest corner of the ty. This species i.s properourrently recognized as "rare but ,i + i.4t eas twoodi te) , not endangered . Butte fri:t3llaria (Fritil].ar pPp ettiliX PIIge 81-1 Of 9 ' MEMER another species in the same category, has been 'previously reported at a site about four miles east-southeast of t4i,s property. No remnants of the previous season's growth of this were plant ob- served during the survey, and it is presumed not to be present Brewer's °rocket (Arabic brewe_ri var. austinae) a third species in the same category has be -•r. reported :fromrock faces several OR, miles to the south of this property. It was not Observed on �°"' this site but even if any may have gone undetected; no constrrtc- tion is planned on the rock faces, Robust churl>er mallow (Sidalcea robusta) is officially re:ngnized as "rare and on.- dangered" and has been reported wittin a few trji:los of this site. Although a related species of 5idal.c.ea occurs near the spring, no remnants of robust checker' mallow itsel C wort; observed dutit&, the survey. s The vegetation on the site '; ' • � provides exec.,ll:eril. habitat ;t;ar _ many large and small species of wildlife, xnclud3 ng ricer, bob- cat, skunk, rabbit, squirrel and mice. Many species of birds inhabit the site:including quail, meadowlarks, thrushes; spax=- meddowlarlt�r rows, gays, woodpeckers aad mourning doves. No rare or eo- dangered animal r iecies are Z,nown to inhabit or depena on the 5 Project site The site is currently vacant. Surrounding lands are also p single located ju;,t north of the pro_. vacant•exce t for a sin le house aect site. A 20 root 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 1.00 feet to the north. At encroachment permit from Caltrans will be re- quired for this actions, Internal access will be provided by oiled, gravel --based private roadways. The California bepartment of Forestry, j.n cooperation with the Butte County Fire Department is respon8iblt-. ,for fire protection. Response time for the volunteer :station in Vorost Manch is estimated to be, 5-10 minutes. Back -UP unitstvoti Would respond from Chico. The Butte County Sheriff � s Department is responsible for law e;.forcetnent in the area. Response time would be about ld minutes, depending upon the location of the patrol vehicle. Studt:nts living in the development would attend. Chico Ser.,or High School., Chico Junior High School and Parkvl ow Blement,a Schac`.. school bus service is provided for junior and senior highschool students only. y .4 Sewage disposal Will be Provided b a se 7tpt io tankcantrnu•_ nity leachfield system. Wastewater from the septic tanks w111 ne collected by a small -.diameter gravity sewer line and pumped 4 to the lea.chfield. Domestic Water will be provided by a pri%,at-0 coh;munity water system utilizing the existing well and an 8, 01)0 gO.11.c ', storage tank. A 20,000 gallon swimming pool will provide additional water storage for fire SUPPression, The el.ecttica,j '.And telephone lines which ou.rrc;nil.y exist west o:t' Righw,,y 0 will, need to be extended to the prr)jec-t site. p11 g pt) e,f syr • y+4W." l.. •wsyuw4 . ♦a a . a'*iP .• rya•.,,,. .• , t lb,c Construction of access roads and p1loPciration 0 hOLIS .n,� sites wi.[I result in some soil d1splacemertr and (1l.sriil)tio►i. N1hior. alterations in topography and ground sur CaCC Features would al..$o occur le: Erosion hazard is rated by the. Soil. Cornservt'ltion Service as "High" on the Toomes-pentz soils. Development should take place only on the Lower slopes, thereby -reducing erosion ptential. Construction activities could cause accelerated ero!,)ion, bu.t can be mitigated by avoiding steep cuts, replanting scalped areas, providing perimeter berms during construction, ant limiting construction to the dry season, lh: Evidence of expansive soils was seen in several of the per- colation test pits located in -the southern portion of the site; however, no development is planned for this area. The largest earthquake recorded yin the Forest Ranch area resin.ted in a bedrock acceleration of 0.17 g the maximum acceleration expected. on the site is about 0.3 g• S1,CW1dary effects of eorth- p q s such as liquefaction and lurching of soil, are not likely to occur due to the characteristic of un-site soils. potential earth- quake hazards will be mitigated, by following the guidelines of tlfe Uniform Building Code, 26: Development of the project would result in a minor but incre- mental increase in both stationary and mobile source air pollution emissions. Stationary sources include dust from construction and emissions from trash burners and fireplaces, While small convenience stares are 1acaIfdeach�dwelli.ngngeiieYatednearest avcmager - outlets in retail are in Chico. of two trips (one way) per day to Chico, total. mileage traveled by all residents (round-trips) would equal 1.,176 miles per day. Total, vehicle em'issiotis from this; incroase in travel is not expected to seriously reduce ai.r. quality along the Highway 32 corridor, in the vicinity of: the project, and into the Chico urban area: 3b: Development of the project would lead to an increase in the 'rate and volume of on-site stormwater runoffi This incvease is not considered significant dine to parcel site and the relatively small amount of impervious surfacing 3c,e;f: As stormwater runoff drains from driveways and roads; it carries sediments and other pollutants into receiving waters. AC'ter devel.opmoot, runoff from the project site could contribute to the pollution burden of Littio Chico Creek4 trosion from storm runoff could i..ventual,ly create drainage rills that: would tx,allsport uilfiltere;d urban ponotants into Little Chico Creek. The total volume or water in L ttly 'fico Creek would marginally increase Appendix p - page 8c of g . 72- M �-- 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" Bidwell''s knotweed (Polygonum bidwelliae) occur on Lot 22i Lot 22 is to remain as pasture hand, 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 species as much as possible, Sa,c,d Residential. development Mould encroach upon existing habitat and may reduce the wildlife carrying capacity of the site. Species tolerant of man's presence;. such as raccoons, skunks, rats, sparrows, and scrubjays, may increase in number. The most sensi- tive wildlife area is an intermittent stream which appears to be an important source of water for Wildlife. This stream, in the grassy portion of Lot 22, will remain as undeveloped pasture land Domestic dogs; if allow,.cd to roam unattended., could chase dear and other wildlife. Pets mttst be confined to homostc areas when unattended. Proposed 'lots, 16 through 21 may be adversely impacted. by vehicular noise :Groin Highway 32. The Safety Element in the County Genor°al, Plan notes that noise levels extoed the adopted CNEI, of Ldn 60 dB, within 200 root of high speed highways,, 8a,b: Current.ly> approximately 153 acres of the project site are in GOL, zoned TM-40, and 35 acres in Agricultural -Resi dentin.l., zoned TM--S. If land were developed under these constraints ll dwelling units could bP constructedy with a de iisi.ty of 1.8 acres per D/U. The applicant proposes to build 2.1D/Us, resulting in a density of 9.6 acres per D/U, This comparison is somewhat rues- leading, since under a PA-C they would be required to leave 800 (123 acres) of GOL as open space Under a PA-C, 80% dedication of project land to opon space would apply only to areas located in the GOL General Plan designiation, In areas designated. A---R in the County Gennral Nan;: the tillowahle density is ono acre pe • n/U' (though any density utrder 20 acro per n/O must be conditionally approved) , Provid liig that tall cri for-.ih for clovel optttont aro net; the applicant Could 1-boo tyz}1 i c a l l y develop a 1 AµC, where 34 D/Us tare placed on dcvolopoble Itind 0 17/1) in the f;OL arora, and ; 3 in the A-R site ltiitd); 'flee applir~atrt has propo;;ed 21 1 /l)s. As mont.iaonrccl, atatellSO LIOV0101111Wtrt udder an A W R l and 118 cies i gnat i oil must ;meet condi t iun:t.l c i`i t 0 r i,, sownge and slope constraints would also restrict site doc . o l ir'1 ;5!ont Land on sttt'rounding properties ling not been developod,, txnd pri - m,tr1'y eXi.st S 81; open tbothi ll and canyon lands, Su� cess fill buildbut of this project may encourage other; landowncv� in tho aroo to consider residential developmont of their prni,o lv. X75- t��inr+Hili �r li ► �1 _s 9a b Some natural resources would be used For • construct Lon of ro�[d.s and residences. Upon. completion, the, use o,(" nonrenoe vablet resources for heating, air conditioning ar►<< appli.cance operation would occur at a sustained level. 11 At Full buildout, this development could increase the popu- L:ltion of the area by 42-63 persons. This population increase is not considered to be significant. 13a c,fi As a result of this project, about 2.10 vehicle trips per day could be added to Highway 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 and otf the hiLIJIMiy would ia- crease the possibility of accidents; the access road should be designed to permit rapid ingress and egress. According to Caltrans, Highway 32 is categorized as an "Expressway", with highly r.,stricted access. Caltrans analysts note that Highway 37, 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 Highway 32 will soon reach a level requiring a year-round managed fire station. Details on exact location, equipmentj personnel, and funding will need to be wonted out between the pare Department, current residen.ts 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: Speci. -tIcations for the hydrant system must meet the approval of the Blutte County Piro Department/California Department of Forestry, S afi.cieftt turn -around area will be provided at the end of the cul.-deasacsi 'urn -out areas will be established, app roxitnl Lely one-half way down each internal road to allow for passage of fire -fighting vehicles. Mitigations to reduce demand on fire protectionseg"vicos include .the implementation of a fuel reduction program along roads and. around horses and the use of fire resistant building materials and landscaping. 14b: As the population of the porest Ranch area continuos to increase, additi%Pal demands will be placed on the Sherif'f's De- partment. Mitigation measures include the installation of security, devices such as alarm systems and deadbolt lochs, implementation of a neighborhood. watch program, and controlling vehicle entry with an automatic security gate. Appendix P ptttl e 8e of 0 74- m 14c: Adequate capacity is available at 11 s;h oo s to UC aAtkAnded by students living in this development. As the pop- t-tla,%Jon along Highway 32 increases, an elementary school ltis route may be required, 15a.,b: The nearest concentration of large retail serva.ces is lorated in Chico, approximately 14 miles south of the project sine. Commutation from the site by future residents represents a marginally greater increase in energy consumption (primarily vehicul:Ar fuels) than would occur if the proposed project were lot:ated within the urban area of Chico. 16o' Refer to item 3c. 17a: The area proposed for the community leacbfield is cltttractor- ir,�d by fairly rapid pe colation rates (4:0x6':5 minutes/i.n(•}t) soils iffluent may not be aciy designed and located in the tideeper Unless leachlines are pro erl i y equately filtered and could move laterally on the underlying rock formation, surfacing on tlpo adjoining hillside. l"b: The presence of rattlesnakes and the: possibility of rabic's In the small mammal population present an area -wide risk of Wiknown significance. Vaccinating pets against rabies and confining tl'lom to residential areas would reduce this potential, hrtzard. Large populations of tree hole mosquitos may present a seasonal nuisance.to the residents. Theyalso serve, as carriers 01"Ltinine -' heartworm: The project is located within the Butte County riOsctui:to Abatement District; however, the homeowner's association may vista to supplement this control With a seasonal program of their c-wn. 19 Construction of roads and houses would change the visual appearance and character of the site.. The proposed setbacks,, proper architectural design, and landscaping should reduce this impact, Although the min -storage facility will be adjacent t o Highway 52, it will not be visible due to terrain. g mortars: was noted during a site inspection. Thissmall bedrock 1. One archaeological site cons' istin of two pt ' , ` further mitigationmeasures 1pa�ebp .,quiroLi ma 7c.d and recorded and. no An historic site consisting of the foundation ,,Id associated features of fourteen Mile douse was also noted ort the lyrope�t;}; but has since been destroyed. T11e archaeologist rocommonds tai attempt be made to designate the site as a "California Point; pal' Historical Interest" and have a marl er placed along llightvtty 3', exiplai ni ng the significance of the site, 22ar Refer to sections 1:, 3, 4, 5j 21. 22h: Refer to discussion of items 8.a and 1), 12c: Potentialcumulative impaots of this projoct are relrat.rd to increased traffic, increased deyi:and on pu'bilc ,services and loss Of Vegetation and 'wildlife habitat. Appendix Ppage 8t' o+ 0 '-75. Y nP 63-01.-02 tptri) + 82-42 s ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED 'PROJECT Altoiliative 1 - No Pro ect Under the "No Project" Alternative, the site wooldl remai..n Ln its present state. Adi•gntag'es Impacts related to human occitpat ion of they site would not occur: These include disruption of ground 8ur- face and increased erosion, loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, increased traffic and traffic -=related haz,ards, inc-ea��e;d " demand ror public services, and possible exposure of people to wildfire hazard and animal.=borno diseases. Disadvantages .. No environmental disadvantages can be iden't ied Cor tvis alternative. Denial of the project would not preclude development of the site funder the current zoning and General. 'Plan designation, which would likely result in fewer dwelling knits placed on the proposed. site: Alternative 2 - Higher Density Linder this alternative, the site would bo developed at a higher density. Maximum buildout in a PA -C under current General Plan designations would allow the construction ori 57 D/Us, providing all other development criteria are satisfied, Advantages - Per capita cost fot public services, roads and othO improvements would be reduced. Mustering more units on this site might reduce development pressures from other similar areas, Disadvantages � Environmental impacts associated with human .inAbitan.ce of the site would increase: proportionally. Providing; iv,ater for mo e residences may-rwt he feasible. The leachfield area will not accommodate a higher density: Alternative _8w Lower Density` Cinder this proposal the site would be developed as currently zoned (TNI -40 and TM -S). Approximately 153 acres of the site are located in the TNI -40 zone, and 33 acres in the rtrea zoned V-1-5. A total. of 11 D/Us could he built, providing all other state and county development criteria were satisfied. A11ta es: Potential adverse impacts to the natural environ- ment, xr,creasekl traffic hazards, incr. easy a demand for public services and wildlife hazards; Would, compared to the proposed project,, be reduced in severity. Distidvanta es - Unobstructed scenic views would be reduced in quality) induced sptaw! development of land surrounding tho Highway 32 corridor, impacts to the natural environment and Appendix F page 8g of 9 ...16x: i T ALTERNATIVES TO TI"IE PROPOSED PROJECT (continued) e:,posure or persons to wildfires and traffic h',azarc s would still occur if the site were developed under exist..j.11gCeneral Plan designations and zones . Alt.jiough less sevexe than those that woul(I potentially occur under the proposed ptoject several of thesea I d nonctheless recjui t�e mitigation to reduce the impact tosa�ylevel of insign fic llce . Appeynd.ix V page _77wr z IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this, initial. evaluations 0 I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is rEcemmended. Q 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 be:ause the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date December 7, 1981 (S gnatui-e.) William R. Sands Fors bLytte ount�/,,�nang epi. Y �•` Reviewed. h e ien A. Streeter *Environmental. Assessment prepared for the County of Butte by: Eco -Analysts 114 West SeVe th Avenue Chico, CA 95926 August 198 Revised by Butte County 'Planning Department November/beceinber 19$1 Appendix P pagO 9• of 9 =78 1RANSPOFTAZION •GCNCY--- �"_. c fir: -CALIF0RNIA--"`�-.... r -- ^�� TME I�. OF TRANspORTAT ON zrT::zz3 r 911, MA ('916)RYSVIII.F 9590674-4277 7 --a , 7 But. o. FinnniagCM Np G, gpvVrN JR" a±rl--r AroVllo� Cal3orai� '� Itiovenllucr 13, 1981 0J PIl �2.0 ljauoe r)u.tte oounty 'Plarii-111, G UrtlT+r a s i at1 County Canter l�xivc or. ov lle s CA 95965 Deas" VieMb4rs of tiie Commission ,tunny ,to rev:le�r tlrr~ c"�ol.LOVIIriibr C�t9 C�lr '`mark wi eu for the opportunity a 21 -unit I , ;ay i1''r're s« t;e ,s or► t1le cavt ;~ICIr-' oi` M ;I,. ,bich crould ailOvr con. tructiOn of 1 Inc the 1u-I�11e liause, Forest Rance, s OU of For 1t1 t c'rl 32> existinL 2d-�'oot r1o�.t� af�l- I-, ro'losec erllar�,erllent of an t and construction of arrreratl�e��ot��a►lce�".5 lno T ea,cil otire , ,osO�1 ioY, yen -1 �x 1U ]louse Road a � o Pasite rol s'rrouId be elirEct�S i�1 oses. Otllert�rise Gere opurr�rr ; for safety burp ay,t, o ad Verse traffic it�il�acts. "r C feet a� r,l.f,rovaJ. a rnr:rr�vEments should have n this axe a vrooId reol'rir'e , anon of any access in The enVIVO nraeJ"t�. I ryo mod!fic ortation G©mnis5ti��e��aorlc to be by the 'CalifOrnia �rat��p acts of y the imp c Cetat j on re1110va� , aria docurrlent should ider^thif o� ��ay, such a� ve ;round tltc:n UbIl;it �,ritilin thetatc ata on moasures 'i'11e �� st.rict. proi3xjiate mitonrrjerita�. docunerit wltYj the ir Zcatiorl 'car' ar. the f i>',a�. envie ar"CeVis openillE. uitlt;ert'IY s 'I. v� o J. . �,I E01.1SATO r\kr d:�tx».ct ��3^er;tdr eS` mrns►rcr>�tat3.ar'► Vjj �Jlr Ci ;li` ��;���"]�, �arill:,t.r'Ul'►t•eu:tltici� 9 i f .fir. PREPARATION STAFF Albert J. Beck Principal Investigator Ken Jordan Environmental Analyst II Christine Sinnette Environmental Analyst II Don Burk Environmental Analyst I Jeff Harvey Environmental Analyst I Roger Lederer Certified Ecologist, Grade G Philip Lydon Cdalifornia. Registered Geologist #144 James Manning Archaeology Consu7:tant Kingsley Stern Botanist -80- .: TO P1 _ AL'PEND'[Y 8 �..�nnini,atnmis,sionet•s Eor 1/6/83 meeting 14 Mtle House Rezone 82-42 Letter of 1.2/20/82 from Bill Turpin 'to Al Beck 'regarding fiscal impact analysis Fiscal Impact Analysis from Eco -Analysts Letter of 9/16./82 from Chico UniEied School District(yo response) Memo from Public Words 9/2/82 (ilio response) Letters from State Agencies Responses to comments from State Agencies Memo frortt Envitonmental Flealth 10/7/8 Letter to Angelo Volpato from En ironmental Health 11/2/81 Al Beck ECO Analyst5 Inc. .J, 14 Nest 7tli Ave, ."'CO. Cil 9592.6 DOar Mr: B mm tANn OF NATU�Af. V'-�FA LThf ANp PI-ANNING COMM S EA U TY. 7 COUt�7Y CENTER p I SS I ON RLVE _ OROVRLE, CALIFORNIA 95965' AH ON E : 534.4601 Docef,lbct 207 198, eCJ,; s have reviewed Your fiscal connection c,i th a P analysis im act 14 Nile, House draft environmenfi��1 z, Prepared in aPProacli pe�ane, �1P 63-p1 i171pact re fiscal tivJlich X02 I a Part for tete i+�lpact analysis ran attempt to gree frith ]tOV-ever, I do n ) si5 for this cons . Your basic fee relatively Y simpli fy the out in your anal l that some important Y srtal? prpjcc.t, five-year analysjszS" Tile arithmotic details have bee in botli the erzue+�eriod, some sort Of that n le Et clear that re;� and the cos - fAPhasin in Your in the revenue _ impac�. an�l.g has been used to project Phasing analysis ysis, ology �'S n g has been used. a s�raight line Tt seems of used However approach olog}� is not in tJ�e Cos'' fihis expZazned analysis the same Method_ xs ,nerel r , it is impossible Because the an arzthi�tatic to deter method. lizdderi consi It are tic nvo r rations rrc�r, or Jtihether so 0 %'}heth r In addition lvod. me other sore i to an appnrettt w mportant costs mtthodolo because of the hero left 1; diSc rep all C . the count size of the °U`� Ithzlc -I j.; } it seeris ) budget project oulei a etron by g b}• ina'ox ' a drtaxlecl free that Per ho us. ur Meas;tre oaj � category trould analysis o f CO5t what y not be aPpro Xs eci 551'. is si p fic categories °f tvauldhzf� cant, that is praate e ries aero indicate that the' an average g t, hoi,�e�rer, were leftrout o at this preirzous Veao� 0WIn�r 1. Public s analysis: r 5 pro tecta on - 2. , other than police and fire, Roads 3' fteaYth andny�xtatirr� ry`� 5Gio,tia costs Should s in be < t1;ec"Ipute I and for ti son vie ' comparOfztic] included ttts revenue's versus se ite , as ive11 cost and a brXey 0 r 6 R _ Al Beck Eco Analy s is r December 20, 1982 Page explanati.or, of the methodology for both costs and revenues should be include(' so that all computations can be checked. Sincerely, Bill Turpin Senior Planner BT:sT, M m , .n i 114 West Seventh Avenue Chico,`CalifOfnia 95926 (916) 342y5991 becmber 2, 1982 Stephen Streeter Butte CcuntY planning County Center Drfve DePartm nt aroville.1 CA 95965 Dear Steve Enc1o.-,t5d is .� ke�nt �t brief Abe fiscal and extracted thelbasi f a Z, Mile tlwQ one an basic ROU8e-, fro Canyon Park, date x �.� indicated , Sincex l Alb .rt J, Beck Prxnca.pal and , Ph.r AJB:vx Senior Analyst Enc, .. x.14 i FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS Tho following analysis is prepared at the request of the County Planning Department. The method used, Per Capita Alultipliero* is the most appropriate method to be used, with the small size of the project and absence of a detailed County- wide case study for use as a comparison baseline. Service costs are based on information collected by the County and 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 in an incoporated or unincorporated area. 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 fl iscaanalyses was developed for the 10 homes in*5 year buildout, with the following assump- ti,ons: 2.1 persons pet occupied houpehold, a I year delay before the receipt of property tax revenues, and an assumed level of service of 90% of the total effort for fire, 15% for Sheriff's Department and 85% for General Services and selected judicial. The remainder of effort in each area is devoted to non-residential protection or service, including -the com.mer- cial, industrial and agricultural uses in the County. Revenues The primary revenue source will be property taxes. Property taxes are collected in the next tax period following construction. We assumed a 1 year lag in collection of taxes (4 years revenues by the fifth year.) An average value per completed home of ;,240,000 ($75/sq ft of house, 1M000 lot land and 'Improvements) would yield $541./house/yeas for the County General Fund, At the end of the filth year, the County would have collected $10,826 in property taxes. Sales tax revenues will be relatively minor because the coti- cefttration. of retail business is within incorporation areas. Assuming that North Valley Plaza remains in the County, an estimated oales tax revenue of $25-$30 per now household could be gained by the County or a total of $950-$350 per year or $1,250-$1,750 at the end of 5 years. Miscellaneous revenues, including 2ines and ift-Iieu revenues from the State, would produce about $30 per capita ,or $10/householdOr $1,400 at the end of 5 years4 Total revenues at the end of 5 years would be $18j475- *2,1/porsons/household est. • • Cost Costs to the County for services, begin activities. Assuming that these f,ands are construction only ended on residents Of unincorporated areas and that theseer.esidents, can successfully demand a return to 19,31--82 sl ervi an annual ,average cost of $51.84 for Fite PrrStec�iice levels, for Sheriff protection This wouldper household Would be increased. produce a 5 year total of $5,094.52. General County Admxnistirative and Judicial Sex•vicVices are County -wide ar ar services with a combined cost of $88�heor a 5 Year cost of $2;54g, The total. for 5 pears would be $71742 in costs for this development. Revenues to Cost Minimum revenues at the end of 5 $1:3, 4,75 and costs at 7.742 Years are estimated at County of $5,733, Producing a net revenue to the 01? C114ca 7fl >iS ZiC St*13t�br r 16, 1982 116J EAST SEVENTH SynEXT CHICO. CALIFOR1IIA 95926 AREA Copp 016 , 491-3006 john mendonsa Assistant Director County of Butte, Dept. Of Public {'Torks 7 County Center Drive Orovill.e, CA 95965 SUBJECT: E.I.R. on 14 �tili.l e House Subdiv i siott Dear �� r. htendonsa ; At the September 15, the p 1982 Meeting of the Board of Education Potential impact off' the 14 bole House on student housin the Board reviewed g• The Board was presentedb ithsdataaind��,cat! the students who would be generated b- t potential impact divisions its this area which have previously been con number o: y phis subdiviszort and ilea data closed With th15 letters is a COPY for other sub note that considered by the Board; Eng p, of the data presented to they Board. in the Case of the l.4 ?.f A from this subdxvxsian, when ,com combined tq th other subdivisions You will _1 . FIouse Subdly b' the students generated place Parkview Elementax� f v;isiotas iti -the a beyond thoir respeatit capacoolesnd Chzco Junior High School 6 area, would 9 and B students Beat of the poteht,i.al impact on etude that it is r0commending the 14 '\iile House housing the Board took a position afire erment betiveen Butte Count and -Subdivision not be a fin�lncing for the housing n the scluiol district on cprroved pending g ofi stttden4s att this areti; pos.,zble trays of in�te�tly, Robi n C. T�� ►�� hompson Business Manager/Comptroller RGT CC Robert •.7eJ~ fries ttye Kircher _ UTT ■ � . ,fit+- , • j TC- Planning Department = Environ I n-taa'.Review _�. Land Development Section Public Works ^cY: 14 Mile House PA -C Rezone xu September 2, 1982 We have reviewed the Draft EnvironmentalImpact 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 din Mendonsa ssistant Director JM/ns 8.06 co, ming Sip if�r�rf.i. i GOVERNOR'S 'OF:RIGE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH kww" 1 moo TENTH STREET eROWN JR. SACRAMENTO 95814 (916/445-0613)alPr1 g orrim, October, 198 14 � Cu,•re �^, .-a-Tinily �'an.;'.i. t ��� Mr. Ste henAi rC4ayrli, Streeter C I 1 iQo •.,Iarr ra BUL. County Planning Commission 0rov1119, C"JI410ria, 7 County Centerbr v e Orovllc., CA 95965 SLBSCE3# 82083104 14 MJZE HOUSE PLAiNNED AREA CGCISTEIR bear Mr. Streeter, RTZ L1VE State agencies have c ' rented on Your draft enV ronnental im If you would like to discuss t:h . staff person listed in rhe c ents�� follow* pact report (>;zRj and concerns, contact the 2nztpr nr>:,tm r *,* g is in Lary: The department zees aware of and g that the several hones neer Highway 32 should be plan fore p attenuation, made appropriate noise TIe department recommends consideration of en alt larger 'parcels with ernative Project prolonertt's permat;ent restriction on downzoniri ject utilizing MOPert:Y eXcept for the l0+ acres of the g of any of the >rt housing cluster; .-�.0 ear "tic ou Whon preparingg the (anal EIRr you must inclucle (CA Guidelines, Section 15146 all cc�nents and responses decisionall process for Vie) The certified ETit ✓;fust tenses dire'tUY to the a e • , project. In ad be considered in the g�nca es, cOraents b dttIon� We urge YOU to respond inghause number on corres Y enc ng to them, includin Ix�ndence. g the State Clearinghouse all A 1991 1�a A 19, ljPellat:e Court decision in 11 pp.3.d 348) clarified requirements era v: Co 1n Eft ' s. SpecifiCal l equirements for res o -�� la�a� (118 Y► the court indicated that comments ponding to review comments. giva.ng reasons why .the s must be addressed in detail pedlfic canents and su The respo,�tses should indicate ggestions were not accepted qui red tie s�xQgestions or c any tactors of ov`erridin not. b-3 ..��clt1snk ar tnents to be rejected Pes"sa.gna.fto coe which st tel rt4j 'e; scieri tic authority atements bUb tx- sup ponces to ccmmettts must Y exolanatory Ported by empirical or e said tl ;°J �!te s:esponses most be a . n' information. Thio crimen-» goad faith.. reasoned .. s _ court further analyse , Mr. Stephern A Streeter, bctober 140, 1982 i ;section 15002 (f) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that a governmental agency take certain actions if an EIR' shows substantial adverse environmental 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 problen, 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 (Sectio;� 15088) and it must support its actions with a written statement of overriding considerations for each unmitigated sig- ni ficant effect (Section 15089) if the project requires discretionary approval frau any state agency, the Notice of Determination must. be fired with the Secretary for Resources, as �well as with the County Clerk -Please contact Anna Pol'v`os at (916') 495-0613 if yea!i have any questions art, B � Anna Polvos Le -put irector State Clearinghouse ?projects Coordination attachments cc Resources Agency ........... e c��Mora���a-a� � y. Tc 1, aim burns Projects coo for Date: October 8 1982 Resources Agency , 2. Mr. Stephen A Streeter Butte County 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA; 95965 Frm r Department 'of Fish and. Garner ►zCr. Fourteen x1110 House Rezone, Butte County (SCH 82083104) The Department of 'Fish and Game s ham reviewed , ile House Rezone Draft EIR (SCH 82083104) tot 186 acres u�arnFolrest Rancho Butte County. The project sI lies within the .East Tehama Deer Hera winter tanga which is an Area of Special Biological Importanc current zoning of the. Whin the e area was being adopted by Butte County, the Department of Fish and Game recommended acres to protect parcels in excess of 20 P fish and wildlife resources. Downzoning to smaller parcels bekweerl Forest Ranch and Chico, and Creek and BigpChico Creek, is causing a serious loss bOfwWildlifee habitat by way of cumul�t'veimpacts whi gp��ri:aisal. ch have not received due We recommend consideration Of an alternative project utilizing permanent r. larger parcels with '' the proponent's_ ,.estriction on 'down'zonii7g o� any- of cluster. property except for the 10 acres of the housing If the Department can be of ;further assistance, Please contact Paul. T. Jensen, Regional: Managert Region 2, 1701 limbus Road, Rancho Cordova, 'CA 95679, te1'a phone (916) 355=7020. fop,_ Director � p � r N � p � -rAe4r ron. Urn l t Ta Ron Bass Date :SEP Q 1982 STATE CLEARINGHOUSE , 1.400 Tenth Street, Room 121 ' . subject14 Mile House Planned Area-Cluster Rezone SCH #82083104 ,resm ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DIVISION 714 P Street, Room 430 322-2305 The. Department has ,reviewed the subject environmental document and offers the following comments. The section on Noise (page 20) contains an incorrect statement. Current residential building standards do not result in an attenuation of sound levels by 30-50 0. A commonly accepted figure is 25 dBA if windows are closed, and about 15 dBA if windows are open. Furthermore, ,if cutlent'standards attenuate 30-50 dB, triple glazing- as. recommended would not be necessary. We do agree that the several homes near Highway 32 should btu made aware of and plan for,appropriate nose attenuation, If you have any questions o.r need further informa,:ion cony corning these comments; please contact Dr. Jerome Lukat of the Office of Noise Control at 21.51. Berkeley Way, Room 613, Berkeley CA 547040 415/540-Z,:65. z4z' Richard P. Wilcoxo Assistant 'Deputy Director `3 r» ~`ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, RESPONSES TO C01I1i��NTS - OF HEALTH SERVICES Coiiune nt The de ar tmment a ioees that rtthe seveeal homes near ` P High;vexy;v�y 32sizotc7�d be made uzilurG o planJ'or appropriate noise attenuaJ-ion. Res once: In our E�uilding design suggestions 'to the applicants:, we recommended that those !,uildings nearest Highway 32 have and reduced window area, dcedrtheecitedu30-50dBiattenuat_i.on ac - the walls attic. This design prr od ucompleted homes. A 20 foot high cording to field tests of windw bank provides protection for alin thatnarea ebutrwauldoareas allow of any single story building roof sound penetration through roof axeas. o specific double glazed window We have been vecomnmead ng p units for walls facing noise sources. attenuation de pen level would reduce effective sound stated in Nlr. Wilcoxon's letter. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS - DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAVE do -par x�acorrrari�r�cis cons ideratvon of an atter; Coriunent : iIhe jarels with parmanen t res ts'-&o- n��titie project Ut�tlizit'U Larger re onent'e propevty except tion art ddair�s catirt; of anb of p P 'for the z 0+ acres of trt4 hoctsing muster. Res ons : Figure 4 of the dETTi Int. Al.thoughatkte housesnt Of only ~the p cel proposed for development. cover i(7 d acres, the coft non areas, including nacre l�:ld, s to the a., and open space atoas add anadditional dditionacresu�hatcxepYesentetheea required for developrttent canyon wall sloping down to Littlhe e Chico Creek is designated as open space. The buildil,g potential of this portion as ve�- as open by the limited seals and slopes. The applicant would agree to no further division of this 1"0± f.cre�, but it, cannot be separated from the bu��dablisharea �ng grossbecause of General lan ,r Requirements densities and tonins `t 401. �p p C j. �� g Steve Streeter, Senior Planner, Planning, Oroville rn ' Tom Reid, Chico Environmental Health, Chico Fourteen (14) Mile House PAC Rezone EIR - APS 0-01-02 Portion October 7, 1982 This department reviewed the above EIR and are providing the following comments. Sewage Disposal: Tire report accurately describes the limited sewage disposal capacity of the soils within much of the project area. The soils appear to be most favorable for leach£ields:where the community leachfield is proposed. We cannot verify the adequacy of the area, though, until the applicant has submitted air adequate sewage disposal design as requested in our .letter of November 2, 1981 (attached) Water Supply: The report discusses a tizirty (50) gallon per minute well located on the property. We cannot verify adequacy of domestic water availability for the project until we receive the information requested in our letter ofNovemberd2, 1081 s�eThheinformation must include a well log, accurate November n construction infoxmiation, The exist-ing well may or may not comply with construction requirements for a community Water well. Attachment cc Pco"Analysts - 114 West Seventh,AVenue, Chico Rolls, Anderson & Rolls 965 Fir, Chico Angelo Volpato et a1 P. 0 Box 1100, Chico Joe Henao mater Quality Canrral, 3201 S Street, Sacrasnelito XX November 1, 1981 tir:�alu Volpato et al P'.A.C. Rc.xona A P. 0. Box 1700 pplicaion Chico, California 95927 My. 32 near 1;ourtcen mile House Road API b3--01-o2 Gant�t�an 'This deparlment 'received a Planning Department regtiest to comment With resroCt to the above appliaation. Ce ploLion of our kayix wi'11 require evaluation of propo ed savage disposal facilities and thO proposed source o do�estic water. Please submit thc; y��equired spei��ia�b disposal pexnit a,Jpplioatian so that No nay complete our rovieri or the ��t7 i�VN d�J Jo J4 a4\r • 1� Ih soya p 1 y T'ne aPt>lida'ZIon should- include t1lo e disposa.3 Itasign along with completedsoil classification and percolation data. Ploaspo j alto sLpp 'nrmatibn telatitr9 to Wa.tor availablli•ty and guAlity For 1 • in t1z,. rt► oft y Ver)' to lly you=:.' i Toga Re'idj k. 5 Dil vision oy Ea'riron�nental Health i��los cc3 Kollsj A.Uerson & Rolls Gut{ a Co. p�ann;ng �'�►' ��avittd (;,rti�bina "#•,�° APPENDIX aAPPENDIX 9 r-Depart ; ,1®r®ad „ter' Planning Department,- Env roninentalxRev ew Land Development Section - Public Works =cr: 14 Mile House PA-C Rezone 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, ections dealing with access and traffic.sould be .mentioned in the s Clay Castleberry Director of Public Works I r \ 1 36 n Mendoi�sa �tsistant Director JM/ns C , w. bay a �r • y IM CAST SEVENTH STREET CHICO, CAL.IFOR,NIA 95026 AREA CODE. 116 891-7000 September 16, 1982' John Mendonsa, Assistant Director �tZounty of $utte, llcpt. of Public: Works Cotln ty Center Dri Ve rostjl,le.., CA 95965 SUBJECT i E.I',R, on 14 MIUe Rouse Subdivisi.o t near fit; tiondotts�ti At the Sept -ember 15, 1982 meeting„of the Hoard Of Getucci'tion, the Board reviewed the potential Impact of the 14 1`tiie Rouse Subdivision and its potential impact on sturlettt hou,;ing The Board was with, data �indi.catlllg the: number of students talio t�aull be generated by this subtli,vision a.nd also d;ttn .dor other sub- 3eviaions an this area which have previously been consido- ed by tits' Board. En- cl k.:r_ct 11i th this letter is a Copy ni tlt� data t pt`escnted to tile Board. 1`oti Will note that in the ease o,E tiic l"l *file Itousc 5ubd'ivi-sion that the students t;enex`atecl .from this SubdLvi.s ott, when cotltbined with oilier subdivi$'Lons in the areawould place Parkvi.civ 8Lementary School and Chian Junior High SChoetl G9 and S students licyond their tospeCtivc; c:tp;tuiti.cs. Because of the potonti.:rt':l ampa`•t ort student hnusa.t 9, the Board took rt position that it is 1`Lc;on;mon.ding the 14 Mil. Elattge 51.hclivlsion nob be rjJ?rirovId Pend IMF. ;c er;tntmt he tt��een "Butte Coulti> anel tha sCltool ctistri.Ct on possible ways of fin�jnt.i.ng for the housing of students in this arca. Sincerely, Robin C. Thompson Business Manage>.`/Comptrol.lex` RGT � rev cc; Robert ,1e-Mt--ies �Iiet tye Kircher ST4V'-= OFF CALIFORNIA --TRANSPORTATION AG Y ERARTMENT OF ?RA:NSPORTATION 3oX 911, MARYSVILU 95901 raiephone (916) 741-4277 January 20, 1983 0arge Deukmejian, 03 -But -32. PM 22.4 14 -Rile House Rezone SCE 820831044 Mr. Stephen Streeter Butte County Planning Department 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA '95965 Dear Mr. Streeter; Caltrans, District 3,, h;a.s , -evi owed the draft: EIR and tentative subdivision snap for the 14 -=Mime House Rezone, a 21 -unit residential project adjacent to Highway 12 We have revised our earlier, recommendations of November 13, 1981, which are included in the draft EIR and in your department's file The location of the proposed 60 -foot access on the east side of Highway 32 is acceptable, subject to provision cif adequate sight distance beyond the existing cut slope. It is also conditional upon the existing 20 -foot access on the west side of the highway remaining unimproved rather than enlarged as shown on the map.: We Understand that the applicant plans to make this revision. Thin should be reflected an the final map, As previously noted, any additional or modifl6d access to this portion of Highway 32 requires approval by the California Trans- portaticn Commission, as well as Caltrans' Permits Engineer. Very truly yours; LEO J. TROM8AT0�"B Oistvict Director of Transportation B R. 8. Skidmore chief, EnVIronmental Branch; Vu f}e Co. PIdnning Comm, J A ��12 A. 19,"13 Grovllla� C-allicie a vd y Department response to the memorandum dated Sentembe'r 2, Pla.nnin, p " 198.2, from the Department of Public Works The applicant is well aware o E the t°�qu-Irenlent t;or a public road - roved b the California Transportation app rorch that must b e approved y Commission (CTS) Caltrans had been contacted by the consultant n p,re}�arasure ng the draft RIR. Though a condition/mit`igforotheepublic wwi:ll address this fact r'Thleemainosection dealing lvement OF the Cwith access and road approach i_ n traffic appeaTs on pages 21 and 22 Department response to the letter, September 1.6 , Planning p dated 1982, from the Chico Unified School District The attached responses and letters, prepared for the Quail Canyon Tentative Subdivision (no}v called Canyon Park Psstates) , a"'e deemed rns of the school distri adequate to address the concect. A mitigation measure has been added to address the stl�:hool impact. factor. Planningp Department response to the letter, dated. January 20, 1983, g :from Caltrans District The revised recontmenda.tions are acknowledged. Two conditions from tile ;Department of Public Works wi 11 e�7uComm,� ssiorvithe �lv�►neiit o� Gal t trans and the Cal i,Eornla Transportation W RESPONSES TO COMMENTS COMMENT: Letters rom the Ghico Unified Schoot Di6t.rict The SchooL District recommends that project approval be delayed pending an agreement between the County and Dis tr=ice for financing classroom space ;for new sttidents, ofSai n mpeDistrict actassessmentfor ctemporary usetioolested trooms he byimposition the City of Chico and is making a similar request to Butte County. While the Di,str` et will face potential overcrowding from the many currently proposed or approved rezones, there is still space in existing schools: The exact amount of available space depends upon utilization patterns, includirng space used for special. programs. In the Parkview School two special classrooms are used for the programsi in addition, 43 studdnts have been allowed to transfer to Parkview from other schools 'within the district. The exact number of students generated by the Quail Canyon project cannot be accurately predicted, it is probable, how- ever, that they will be fewer than the district -wide average of 0.43/DIT. The proposed project will consist of exclusive homes with an older average age of occupants. If ownership inn,the Hagenridge 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 (wail Canyon is 25 or fewer at buildout, which may take 8-1'2 years, The County should continue to process development applications up to the building permit stage, the point at whish the school impaction fees will be assessed. The School District has met with the Chico City Council:, with two County Supervisors in e, and asked for establishment of an assessment fee: Lock! developers are currently -trying to negotiate an equit- able 'fee scheduler before the next meeting of the CUSD Board with "City and County officials. Pu+ � Co, Plam109 cnim• iso 109x2 -t�raVllh, Cali3oktii IIT, ce RUiie (a nein9 Comm. arr N0+/ i 't 192 •,•, ; Y Oroville, Calitornia 114 West Seventh Avenue Ch, ,CO, California 95926 (916) 342-5991 November 15, 7952 Stephen Stxeeter Butte Planning Department 7 County Center Drive OX*Ovi lle CA 959.65 RE: School Impact Mitigations--tual Canyon Dear Steve:' E.ngl.osed is some additional wording to 'add to our earlier reg- sponse to C.U.-S.D, comments. it In the event that a school impact fee 18 not negotiated then -the school district may make findings under Government Code section 65971; IS these findings are supported by s'tbst,antial evidence, and are made and concurred in by the Board of 5upervisor.s then an ordinance establishing school impaction Sees may br' established pursuant to Government Code section 65074; An express mitigation measure for tris project Should be: d' ure Building ._._ g permit -applications for resits nr euces inthisSzubd1.vis .on shall be, sub,lect to any school Mitigation fees established by an ordinance enacted prior to the filing of such applications In vio%v of such school impact mitigation measure; it is not necessary to delay action on the tentative subdivision map, since sign:i licant adverse impact to the schools can feasibly be mitigated by imposing appropriate lees at the building permit .stage of development,The increased housing costs clue to mapping benelit of avoiding delay overtides any Potential school impacts since such impacts can be feasibly mitigated, 11 Sinre" e Y, Albert jj beck, Phil), principal and Senior Analyst AJD:vx ' � 1 � • 4r: 1. 's' Ufa Co. Planning COMM NOV 1.6 198 Oruville, Calitorama Drake Homes John h Orat'O ,>ir; 0. jL41rir" 135n F-0 Lascen Avi�nu% Suite 7 P n Be- t 4,11 c ata+ r,; CA 9l)927 rell�phone 9 115 895-993 1 ;Novombe;r 15 '1982 Board of Ecimation Chico Unified School. District 11:63 F; 7th Street Chico, CA 95926 Re: Quail Canyon Tentative Map - overcrowding in the Parkview t.leinentary School _ Attendance Area Doa.r President and Boardmembers I am writing this letter on behalf of the Qua.i l Canyon Project developers to ;Inform the Board o•f Ld1.lcation that ;the developers tjoli.eve tl`tere exists reasonable methods to mitigate the over- r,rntvcliti ; ,rn,jected for the Uaj-k-v oAv attendance' area which have not bor=on considered, [3c r,,nusr^ my rt=�r`1uost to he on thv f�ov-mb('�i 7 7, 1 182 Board of Ed t.lrtaf [on agon In was rOJOCtOld, and ~ince the project application i$ scheduled for County revi'ew, cert Covemher 29, 1982, a; discus Sion of theso mi.ti.gataon mea..sl.Mes w:i1,t have to take place at the November 20, 1982 Advisory Agency meeting. I would request that the Bonrd direct its reprosentat`Lve to attend this meeting, which will be held in the Boftrd of, Supoi-v cors Chambers in Orovil,1e at 9:00 a4m, in the morning, The reason;tbl.e mitigation measures which the Board o:f Education has riot GollSi-dered 'El—le: 1, Patkview attendance area projected 'student PoPula=» t�Lon Includes des students froth two projects which have not been approved by the County, namely Bidwell Heights (PO students) and 1.4 stile i- OU,5e (5 students). Also there are 48 '' Form to" students attending Parkview from oltt5xde ofthe attendance area, '['Fuert tie, following btlildout or the Quail Canyon Pro juet, , tho Tali rkvi rw n.t to1 ditncv area Will have a t; til a i n ti n,g c ;i;jl n c i t or 28 q t 11 d e n t s~ 1erwli 41rtt,� I'��Yvwlul��r�r�tr( Z T � � c . Board of Edu.ca� n November 15, Page 2 Also overlooked is the vacancy factor for all projected units. With buildout of Quail Canyon, ttte attendance area %vi.11 have 599 new homes. A 57;,, vacancy rate will decrease the expected student (elementary) population F these units from 139 to 132 Students, Pet;sainihg student capactity in this instance, is 35. 2. A reasonable mitigation measure involves ap- plication of the alternatives for funding r.3, permanent school facilities authorized under the recently enacted "Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982" (Senate Bill No. 2001, Chapter 1439 - effective January 1083). Atten- daniae area 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- veloper8 and the school. district, to provide temporary school facilities under the provi- 8jon,8 of Government Code Section 65973 (b) and 65971 (b), The Board of Education is currently pursuing only the one mitigation 6f making fIndings under Government Section 65971, having the Board of Supop,,qsors concur in said findings, and instituting school im- pn.otjoh fee.s, pursuant to Govel'nmerlt Code section 65073. Thesetees would be collected at the time building permits are sought, and ,would -.I,ppi W�Lrcc-'1-0, in the attendance , y to all, undeveloped re area so that adequate school fmcil.ities would be available when needed and overcrowd lng would be avoided. In view 01 the additional school impact mitigation tnOA8UreSj there is no neces8ity 'to delay -action On the tentntlive sabdivision mn.0 since sigftiticant adverse impact 'to the schools can feasibly be mitigated by imposing apProPrllate Fees rit the huilding permit stage of dovelopmorit) among other mys. T)io pubLLc bonefit of avoiding increased housing costs due to ma,pping, delay overrides any potential .school impacts since such impacts can be feasibly mitigated. Should the Board of Educatit)n h.-Lve any questions or 114ke to discuss arty of tbo Altorna"tive mitiqaflorl motisures above, pleafi0 do not hesi- tate to contact gas ,7,0:reBolster PAfthhihq AdmihIstrator Dr, M rlot,R rl(� L 1;,v (I K 1 1, v I I • Fiscal Analysis The following analysis is prepared at the request of the County Planning Department. The "per capita multiplier" method is used because it was the ono used by Cottnty staff in tbeir fiscal analysis on Quail Canyon and has be used on the much larger Bidwell Heights project. The size of the project, and the absence of a County -wide baseline 'preclude the use of more accurate and meaningful methods. The "per capita," method, assumes that the next year's costs can be pre dieted from those of the current year, that service levels from, most departments will remain in the same range in the future, and that the budget process itself will be used to balance short term shortages of capacity in one department with existing surplus capacity in others. It also assumes that service levels are equal for all areas of the County and usually assigns all costs to residential sector, neglecting the demauds created by commercial, industrial and agricultural sector. In the current analyses, costs are adjusted to re- Elect service demands of non-residential uses, "Per capita!' analysis is applicable Only to residential uses, Revenues Revenues are calculated on a County -wide basis, except for sales tax, Silice most revenues are collected on t1nat basisi Property _tAXes 'are the, primary revenue source -for General Fund monies. The developek is ftSSUMing a value Of $200,1000 per unit at time of completion, but this does not include any variation for larger bometu, inflation or rosalo. A more profitable average value is $240,000, asst,,mlng construction costs, a 2 percent annual increase in assessment value, and limited resales. The County is reqUeSLIng that PrOPOrtY taxes be calculated on the basis of $150,000 units as woll as at $200j000 acid $250,000. Property taN rOVenUOS WOUld therefore average $330,$',140, or $550/yoarj Since homes are assessed alter completion and/or sale, and balk: Of the property -tax is due at the next semi-annual pay period, April or December, there is frequently a six month delay in receiving any Property taxes. One-half of the annual property tax is 'therefore as- signed to the year of the construction and full 'taxes to succeeding years. Sales taxes ave paid to the State by local businesses and the County's PottiOb is then remitted back. Again, there is a delay betwoen the expenditure by residents and 'receipt by the County, although 8 -ales tax revenues begin with the purchase of building materials tend appliances aild are more likely to be received by the County in the year of contribution, -I- Although disposable income will be relatively high, the 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 income on taxable sales: The commonly used figure in Butte County is 16 percent of disposable income, reflecting 40 percent of income on taxable items and 40 percent of that figure spent in County areas. This figure appears high in lig1vt of national surveys**, and the proximity of the City of Chico and its retail opportunities, compared to -those in the un. - incorporated areas. If a disposable income of $50,000 is assumed, then a 10 percent capture by the County is more likely than 16%. This would produce .ales tax revenues of $50/household/year. Fines, ForeitUres and,Penalties are received on a County- wide basis, irrespective of place of residence. The 1982-83 expected revenues are $715,116 which translate to $4.97 per capita or $10.44/household/year. api Licenses, permits and Charges for Current Services are categories in which fees are supposed to cover the costs of providing service.;. These are project specific and not re- lated to population. Revenues from 'Use of Money and Property' are monies un- related to 'development costs, or population levels. While t,".ey are included in !some "per capital' analyses, they reflect past fisca,!, prudence rather than number of residents or types of uses. State Aid funds encompass a wide variety oX In-liQu and subvention monies to cover specific prograIMS Or CatOgOricS, Welfare -related monies contribute 41 percent of the total, the remainder are divided into General Fund and special Tund categories. 11%ghway Users monies (2104, 2106) are a major revenue source foz road operations. Tt 1982-83 these state funds Will amount to $2,101,693. Other motor vehicle in -lieu funds will add $2j000,6721 for a total of $4,111,365 or $27,58/capita) $60,02/household/year. Mobile home fees, criminal justice; mental health, ABS Public Health, and the, remaining State aid fund will provide an additional $6jO22,164 or $87,01/household/year for a 'total of $147,03/H141/yr. �Viewol) W, and R. Mier. 1081. Analyzing Neighborhood Re- tail Opportunities: A Guide for carrying Out u Preliminary Marks Study, Planning Advisory Service Report 358, Federal Aid I)rovides monies for various funds, including a number of categories of welfare. Since Revenite Sharing and CETA monies are highly questionable future sources of monies they are excluded from this analysis. The remaining federal aid funds provide $713,796 or $10.42/111-j/yr, Other Government Aid encompasses monies tvh.jcjj are pri- marily designed for roads or local transportation needs. This provides $2,029,043 in 1982-83 or $29.62/H11/yr. Other Revenues are a minor source charge from County departments for sales of materials and service$;, The 1982- 83 budget shows a negative factor because of previous Year deficits. Costs County services are prolvrided 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 therefore assumed that all residents receivedor Were eligible to recievo, service. It Was also assumed that the County currently charges fees adequate to cover all costs of service vice provided by Planning, Public Works, Health, and the Agricultural Commissioner Office. Service charge revenues Nere not included in the service section and costs are tot includcd in this portion, it should also be 'noted that the recent changes in bud - got and reductions in service levels negate the most: basic premise of the "Per capitar, method.. County Adrlihistrat'oft eftc0n)Pass0s a VatieLY Of County - Wide ;functions, the most promihett O -r wyjjjC,jj is thiz,-, Ass(.,,.,-soy0s office which, uses Over 37 percent of the tottij administrative budget. Other functions in County Administration are StIpport for County departments 'and, since schools and -13pocial districts, I in the Case of elections, can be relinburs(gi for 'less than County -wide functions the population served is less than County- wide. Accordingly, Only 50 percent of the total budget is Rssumed to be assignable to residents of unincorporated areas, Public Protection Judicial functions are primarily a "County-wideservi.. service ..overlapping -other U90hey boundaries Within 'the County, A Portion of the Workload is associated With non-residential uses or non-residents, A service level of, 800,t is assemed for residential Judicial functions resulting in an annual household cost of $40.01.. -8� The SheriffIsdepartment has .a combination of CounLy- wide and unincorporated area functions. The Patrol. and Investigation functions are 'primarily service for unincor- porated areas and it is estimated that 70 percent of the effort is expended for residential, areas and units. The ;jail and administrative functions areprimarily Cottitty-wide and again it is estimated that 70 percent of tho offort is related to residential. uses. This producus an annual house- hold cost of $73.35,. Juvenile, Detention and Probation. Departments tare County- wide functions. it is assumed 'that 75 percents of the effort of these :functions is related to residential usos :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 I s estimated at $30.74: Other Protection services including the Planning Commis- sion and Animal Control are not County -wide, .while others such, as thn nlibl.ir. Guardian and Civil Defense may be. Because Of a.IC t LL v i %Xn6 i ,,' ovo lay %1n at 71-, budget is assumed to be applicable, with an annilal 'household cost of $17.96. Public 'Pays and Facilities are pri.mat^,il.y a Coe -tit y -wide .function although much of the maintonat ce. and i,tuprovement serves primarily residents of 'tnincorvoVaLOCI. t e(ILLS. Many roads and dtaintage. channels serves agri,culturai or i'orested areas only. A County -`gide servi c(� 10VO.1 or 0 P 'J'_(!IM t is assumed: with an annual, household cosL of $45,05. The propo nents of this project will build a privaLu r()ar.i tiystc:nt and re ;idents Will havo direct access to SSI aLc, llighWt�y i2. Prc.- jedt design and topography pretivdo any mvttr;(Mahl" ofBirt upon local or downstream drai.nagc :;y> t,�ms. Ilealth Serviced and Sanitation art., ra, cumblkiation of County -wide anti litii:i.ted area services. Tile County -wide com- ponents are preventive and mental health program,, education' and laboratory services. Other functions are assumed to be designed :for unincorporated areas or recoverable expenses through .fees. Yater and sewage systems on this project will be built by the proponent and paid for, including maintenance and operating casts) by the homeowners, Many health services which are available on a County=wide 'bass may not be used by residents of this proposed project sitice they w111 use private medical services. Overall only 60 percontr of the budget in th s area appears assignable to resi.dunts.of this l;yp0 of prof �:t for at, anhual household cost of $,17.82. �4 Public Assistance, after removal. of NvelfarO and CETA components is a minor budget item With an annual household cost of $2414. Education cost:; includo those aissociatod with the library systwo which 'benefits the entAro County. The annual household cost is $15.88. The memorial. halls are classfied as Recreation and are for Use County -wide. The annual household —cot- is $1.05. The accumulative costs andrevenues are shown in Tables I and 2. Table 8 contains comparisons at Year I with 2 units, Year 5 with 10 units, and buildout at 21 units in 10-12 years 1':jr 3 levels of assesaed valuation. In each instance, revenue flows were higher than costs of Cotin-ty services. While the amounts vary, the findings are in agree- ment with other, more detailed studies done; by a variLaty agenc-le,4 and private firms in various 'Olart- (IJ, CFO *-'.Corrlcia- 1,11-1 lwu8es witi, an assussod ,MlUaLioh 01' ;4p160�UO6 or greater provide ado(ii.wto to cover costs. Property taxes alone cover almost 'III of the Service'costs, particularly since servio-o !iavp- been reduced due to budgetary constrai tits.