HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-25 DAN HAY'S DEV. AGREE. (6)Allk
Trip Distribution
Not all Of thP, genera.ted travel is external to the site,
We estimate Chat 10% of: ,.he vehicle trips will ,take place
Within the 'site, Additionally, it is estimated that l0%'
r- o: the vehicle trips will utilize the Durham-Oroville
highway and 12 utilizing Pentz read, with the 'balance of
47% dist-3 Ulted north: of the interchange on Highway 99
L and 31 distributed south of the i terchange on 'Highway 99
The travel de -mend distribution is summarized in Table 2.
The project generated traffic was assigned to the :roadway
system on a peak -hour, basis. The 429 peak -hour industrial
and commercial, trips were assigned assuming an inbound -
outbound distribution o`60«-40 . Once the peak -hour vehicle
trips were assigned they were factored to produces daily
traific levels.
'Zhe resuiltant':daily traffic volumes produced by the 'Pentz
and 99 devel.op„entare shown on Figure 2 in parenthesis. ..
Figure 2 also. slows: the existing daily two-�yay tr.afirc at
the developriert area. This shows the impacts of adding
the Peretz and 99 development ;:raffi.c ;to 'ex-isting traffic.
The Lra�, z:c
volume increases are only significant on, the
site, tarticulerly at the entrances to the parcel north
anld south; of Peutz Road and east of Highway 99
It
�?P, 1/w s� R' "em- 9^TCS C, DEVE OPMENT OV AREA
CIRCULA77-1,W; SYSTEMS,
r
..,c_ po x a4l!dit ion of 2384 <rchic2e per day
41
77-
r
y
,
'a, HXCLE RIP ENDS
DISTRIBUTION
I
i
Internal
External
--
Triot�racton;
Tote
�
C 6 4 0 j
-0-
640
640
.�,
COmmercial - 2
139
1,251
d39.0
t
�...f
Cd�aTMercial — `
C159)
-0-
159
15;
�
Cx�xaerr.il -
.
Cs13)
-t3-
•
813
813
n
0=;unexcia.l - S
348
348
n
{.� ria. - }
a�'f. Il,i S 4
L .`. 1
120
1, 675
L..Y
O — ..
195
--
X d'us ri 111 2
7
58
-0_
6S
GP.As"t1D TOTS ; .
266
2,384
[
G
�,fs,�
4, 610
F7
}
x
_
E'r
r
.-_-T �.
__ � + cam. � t ;� �� 7 � r��-a � ��� c � �� r�
s;
.v4v
�.p
pro3..ecte.8 irUm the Pent7. 99 development were added
� .F✓;
to the exist,;ng traffic to determine possible irnprove-
•
tent needs associatoc With the'tatal builc?aut nL the
i
develc�prnt The .�,��provereni:s are listed below:
F
�.
le Butte County Department Of PublicWorks should
consider selected iMPLI3vements in encroachment
design on Pentz. :toad at the entrances to Parcel
` l and 2, and Chico-Oroville highway at parcel 3.
These iMprove: tents should be made at the time o
deve,lonmept ,
�,
2. ¢ tra`r. is signal tray ue required a- 'some time in .
•
the future at t..e entrances to Parcel 1 and 2, on.
L JT
Pentz kca.d, ?'ericidic y�Aoni�orinff a dev610pment
occurs will establ4 sh the time: of need if it ever
arises,
[ rF
J
r
FUN DiVG ' : 1�tiiSPCQ2ZTl: 1 CTI .1MPRC�'�,ri.�'i.ENTS .. -
mow. � -r��
r.
Since' the road improvements iaer tiried in this report
together with on-site improvements to the development
rl
are, potentially high casts, the 'owner or developer may
w�
;sn
LI
to utilize an assessment district funded by
industrial , Development Bonds- The,,assessment assigned
tv' each area
o the deelopreit could be determi ned
'- h , .
by .. e i�ortion of pro�eeted accumulati�re 'averace wily
traI c using the improvements.
tF
v
u
a,..
1fy
Y
. a
"
-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1.
Dec artment of Transportation - TRIP GENERATION*
INTENSITY FACTORS, State of Arizona, 1.979 Edition
`-`
2.
Caltrans - Di,,"strict 3, 1982 TRAFFIC VOLUMES BOOXI
'
ANNNUAL UPDATE TRAFFIC CENSUS EDITION, per .Mr.. Bob
a u
Burrml -- Census > Officer
3.
U.S. Depay-tment of Transportation, DESI.G�.' OF
° �..
URBAy ST. RE ETS MANUAL, Federal FederalHighway ;cminista-
t Tor,ices o',. Resear.-I;h and Develdp ent - Tech--'
r,
nology, Sharing Report 80--204, January lo3fl
4.
Butte Co -y Department of Public i1orks, - 1982
f
ADT UPDATE, per fir. Elvin Pierce Roadway design
Engineer,.
Butte County - GtNI ZRAL PLAY LAND USE iEtiTu
j%L;P 1979
6*
Depart e,*�t of Tr" anspo,tt ation -- CAL:i'R.�vS LETTERS'
COICr.?N_ 'G TRAFFIC CIRCULATION WD HIGHWAY 99
..
Butte County - ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW DOM E\T s
81-02-03-01 A & B
8,
Butte County - PLANN, INN 0 FILE 81-8'8 A & 3
Lj
W...
0.
r
} w
•• �r ���l x'1;9" c"4,"J � ���'�,X � `,' �.
riKI r (,, ., , •�� 4; r , a" +1� �r, a ,+ ,L ,.ti r L
s
vas
?r1 � ��'�.�.. Y e i�* '+ a � 'YM`'1'tt;• -' ..�.t Pti z: •,.r;
i�� I' �,� •,,..,,•rs. _* s t � �a�h`L. ��9:, .• ;
1T1i1INAT, !)ll i -l. )I ( �;,1(t;11' 11t'I„11);;
�i!• �: Ts r ryr : �+, (. ��^, ca�c� I
,ST,1Tt, R()I" RI Y t i,�1f.1:
' s
P-11.4
ii�;ff�'°%� fnnii;I.Uf'alril Itou-NI)aILs
• ..;dry. - ,.. �:`r � , �
cox
quti �n
•,T '• t' '(ti l":/. 1(().11) O � zltfi i
:
ME E \\j IT
L99 UT
AIL rZE
\j U 2Z
nr
4 s
�y�Y w�4��r yy
D 4U TTE C pO_��7Y'Nt^��
BL�'."F 11, t t � yry�J.•i n a? V' i -
.w....e.»r�+sr..nv:..+,r'..»>,., n.uk.r•w.r......,p-... � �:;
�1.}SL� �f l`J :N, .L; +N A•'i ��d,RwkCY
will on
l�c�4�Gf`,AUVSS�{i�� ��F ?• o{t 2 T,8
+
(?� ����'�*���*•��' �,51�t,�
t6tA�� iyyl1yysg�;yra���,7�vq Cezy�yyryyyr, 25 ou-Ic. Comer Drive, rj,v ' 1 w California, .Ss G�ei�AS L'Mr• &J., W'rYW+.B R
,�. r.i 4:��,'�'.�"w diY •�*'cam �3.�..�+��,�#i�6Ilu�A ., !'w t4�J ��.;7 #��.` �e +Wr��'. t4�t ..��.�6 �?"('p ��'''f4:�'�:S RA�4`%.w, �
- �Yf..: t � �At"�IG�Jf�4�',�,?"P y! '7,arn� �� i n � k9 G• C�.' � r `" �;
acre
Ple$ * � ca .d � I +theWr�'4til as AP NI corn r Of Nord Huy,
ZIGTC part Cul as
ITEM ON �,Hj(qj
4"s-�k � ¢* 3'
IP 4J,��6 (I.R4 � A9f ISf ,(%+ {y P:y a"f pM q a"T"•a•.Wft�.r..,rcr:as.Yfr6W. z.�.wW 9Y�w+µyti'" .x:apc-xy
+{! ap.k�.'��`�•rn�a. ��ae. nay ��tv tv , t,W ' dd,.��,'p�, i8�' �'a*��i Cf�„�fS �i ��a �.��3«�9�i �L���'li J. �'n ,
acre
f.
on pvoporty c uteri ora the So th zide of Cumming' a�
609 �'0 t -est-�'uf Lpt?:escribled Road,, 'identiRe S A 40-, ,,o, �5�3ro��x
as follomg:
n more
M rn `' , easterly. �3�, � ?"w �'tti of Lot
3 ray the rnzk m tat �.,��� Settlemewz per map of
Map Book a t4
reccdrd 3.
oil
County Recurdev,
acces, 'move or less'.;TACI JV
MUCH 4NUWATIVP
xled'as ATP 40-13-22 IA.
�y yY 1,
yy,, ��yy. ��yy. y� yt of All kat iz lert �kn , '1 ,�.} J,,. °k�� art. b t � �1��' �N }�.5. �C. R SSA r,
N ' f
fit + i F � c9 � #: 4! 'Y 4 �, j � ' s. a' as .°• i
u —
,4
r
PARCEL It BEGINNING at a concrete mon.timaj,1t, jthero the l ; ne
'betueen the properties of the Chas P. Lott Land Co. and the, ti
Leland Stanford Junior Urtiversity intearsec4s the ea,�terYy
m�sP the Rancho Esquon which line fox theF purpose of this
;..aGc iptiOR will be Considered as bearing N 410 1 ;
ra, ����. �"r, thence
1,101", the, Iane between the Lott. and Sta tford pro ert'es S 890
49 i/21 W , 1999.4 £°r � to a point ut in t1le cutter v� the County1'€iac! £r�r Chico $o OTOVill e a said rt�a:d Wa:s located pra.or to
January 1, 1921- thence: along said S xoad as the
located pxrlor to January 1, 3.021 S 52'0 32 v E 1336, 5 ft.
to Athe point o£; intersec�;a.s�n�a;� the said Count Road th�a�ce S 9 S9 E 932.9 ft ther+ce S 4l 2a! L X226 £t
County Rt a with
the County road leading to Cherokee; thence alongsand Cherokee
Road N 88, 58 r E 982 vio ft„ to a concrete mt numenonthe easterly
111 of the rancho Esquon being the 1199 corner of fractional
Section 36, T21N R2E 10 01; thence 11 400 W If 3697.7 9tr g-ong
said Rancho line to rho P.0 int til beginning
EXMPTIVIG THEREPRO),j a strip s£ land 80 feet wide as described
iii a deed. from William g. Bradshavi et rax d:u Ma.bel. Clime Saffetrd
dated February 5, 10141. and recorded ,February- 6, 1.941:, in took
253 0£ mutts County Official. Records, at Page 241.
PAgCEL 2: Y of Numbered ,3 0£the S 1/4 of Sac, 26, T21N It2E
EXCEPTING AND RESEXVING FROM 9a.zd Parcels l and 2, any portion
thereof as contained In .dead. From Allwood Orison Bradshaw, et wtv
to the Stade of Cal. fornix, said Deed dated June -12 19SI and
recorded October 4, los'l, in Bonk $04 of Butte County Official
Records, at Page 27"f.
EXCEPTING Ti osE FARCEL'S1)BSCRI.BED in Y i 13ee4
to St
ate, s:1'
CalifOrni6 recorded in Book 1920 o£ Off ciaI Records,at gage
471.,
ALSO EXCEPTING T14AT certain parcel dos(-.ribed in the Deed to the
County 01 3$UtiOi 'Recorded �n Book 1634 of C£'ficgaj P�ecorcl_� a 32
Page 219,
Con.tainiz; 85.,,34 acres,
to'e or 1ess
i ..outheast „-c Crisco b File
The trove anexttioned application'SOpet t�.o�s, VAP s9 and negative
reports and on, file' and av
Of the $a�.�tQ Grunt ailable gar pub �rset�3,x�g at tae office.
P"1,anii�n�
. y e, �3e partmLant, 7' Coity Cen a� Drive,,
Orov:ll.e p Cal fok is
BUTTE COUNTYPLA�JNJNG CC3�•kAIS$II H. Fig ScI�tCl'tEgv.p1aCTOR CP PLPAIN1N
TO BE PUBLISM, JN TAij, Cr"tiC{�; E�iT��.P ISE �tECQRD'Ci� TNtlPSDAY,, hCMMER
. r+
a- ,
a(d) In applying the policies of subdivisions (b) and (c) to individual
projects, the responsibility of a public a;,el7cy which is :'functioning as -
a lead agency shall differ from that of a public agency which: is
54Ar,ctscning as -, responsible agency. A public agency functioning as a
lt�ad agency shall have responsibility for considering the effects, both
,individual mid collective, of all activities ';involved in a project.
.public agency functioning as a responsible agency shall have. responsibility
Jor considering only the effects of those activities involved in a project,
*.hidi it is required by law to carry out or approve. The provisions
r, ,01 this subdivision shall apply only to decisions by a public agency to
mrry out or approve a project and shall not limit the 'scope of the
�c_emments such agency may wish to snake pursuant to Section 21104 or
(Amended: Chapter -1200, Statutes of 1977,)
21003. The Legislature further :finds and declares that it is the: Additional Policies
policy of the state that:
,(ti) Local agencies integrate the requirements of this division with -
s ~Planning and environmental review ptucedures otherwise required by law
sof by local practice so that all such procedures, to the maximum feasible
extent, run concurrently, rather than, consecutively.
(S) Documents prepared pursuant to this division be organized and.
written in such a manner that they will be meaningful and useful to
kdecisionmakers and to the public:
(,c) Envir;'mmental Impact re pot's omit unnecessary descriptions of
Projects and emphasize feasible mitigation measures and alternatives
to projects.
fid} Information developed in individual environmental impact reports
be incorporated into a data base which can be used to reduce delay
and duplication in preparation of subsequent environmental impact re,
ports.
(e) information developed in environmental impact reports covering
larger geographical areas: be used to contribute to information required
la specific 'environmental: impact reports.
(Added: Chapter 1312, Statutes of 1076)
CHAPTER 2 SHORT TITLE
i
210,50: This division shall be known and may be cited as the Cali Citation
fomia Environmental Quality Act.
(Amended: Chapter 1312, Statutes of 1976)
CHAPTER 2.5,. DEFINITIONS
i2 d^.w
n (Added By Chapter 11541 Statutes of 1572)
:d i
is of 21060.1 Unless the context otherwise requires, tht definitions. in this Application of
0 chapter govern the construction of this division. Definitions
i
(c) "May" identifies 'a permissive element which is left fully to the
discretion of the public agencies involved.
15016. Public agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by. Reducing Del
and .Paperwork
(a) Integrating the CEQA process into early planning. (15013)
v
(b)Ensuring the swift and fair resolution of lead agency disputes.
(15065.5)
(c) identifying projects which fit within categorical ,exemptions and
are therefore exempt from CEQA processing. (15100.4)
(d) Using initial studies to identify s! nificant environmental issues
and to narrow the scope of EIRs. (15080
(o) Using a negative declaration when a project ;not otherwise exempt
will, not have a significant effect on the environment. (15083)
(f) Consulting with state and local responsible agencies before and
4uring preparation of an environmental impact report so that the
document will meet the needs of all the agencies which will use it.
(15066)
flowing applicants to revise projects to eliminate possible sign!
effects on the environment, thereby enabling the project to
for a negative declaration rather than an environmental impact
(15080(d)(2))
I
(�V
»•"
and, Trustee Ago -hides reply to the Lead Agency,within the required
tune.
til) When thc- Notice of Preparation is submitted to the State Clearing
house, the state identification number issued by the Clearinghouse shall
be the identification number for all subsequent environmental documents
on the project.. The idemtifla,non number shogAd be referenced on ail
' subsequent correspondence regarding the; project, apecifically ort the
tithe page of the draft and final Elft and on the Notice of Determination.
1506'1. Subsequent EIR
a
(a) Where an IR live �e
act�liteed b prepareess: P��
(l,) Subsecuent c� are prQpcised in�rrhe ro ect which U
i
"��
R � w„s cant env onmental im ac nowt const m ` a previous ¢' a`X04 11J� 1dLtoo;
a (2) Substantialchanges occur with respect to the circumstances 1CI i�91&li� l�G
under whch tht- project is undertaken, such as a substantial dete
t rioration in the air quality where the project will be located,'+
t r,� which will require important revisions in the EIR due to the'mGvt i
. �. involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered &4 , � 0`
i` in a. previous EIR, orM
f
(3) New :information of' substantial importance to the project
Qbecomes available,d ' •.
• • (A) The inior`i�ati'on was not known and could not have b:-eii
n
knownatthe time th-e EIR was certified as complete
or the iNegative Declaration was adopted,
(I3)' The new information shows any of the following
1. The project -will have one or more significant n_ffects
not discussed previously in the EIR,
2. Significant !effects previously -examined will be sub-
stantially more severe than shown in the EIR, R
3. Miti a� ., >1 5.. alternatives previously found
not to be feasible ...b»ad
vroua s stantlall or more si ificant
� S ��
4. Mitigation measures or alternatives which were notoil . � { �i
previously considered in the EIR would substantially
lessen one.or more significant effects on the environ-,
meet.
(b) If the EIR or Negative Declaration has been completed' but the
project has not yet been approved, the Lead Agency shall prepare 7r or Ib Y 0 r e
cause to .be prepared the subsequent EIR before approving the projecx.
(c) if the project was approved prior to the occurrence of the condi«
tions described in Subsection (a), the subsequent EIR shall be prepared
by 'the public agency which grants the neyt discretionary approval for
the project. In this situation no other Responsible Agency shall grant
an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been completed.
57
Y
ol
iReviear by State
151+61.5.
,Agencies
w, 1,% ' ► 4
(a) EIR's a d e ative Declarat1; lowed b state agencies
house, Hen
rin t�rect,
Sacramento,^ Cali i 5$lil
' 41
4. tS . i'I
(b) The #ol,lowing environmental documents shall be submitted to the
State Clearinghouse for revif,w by state
W
agencies:
,&�I
(1) Draft EIR's and Negative Declarations prepared by a state
agency where such agency is a Lead Agency.
(2) .Draft EIR's and Negative Declarations prepared by a public
here
cYwa ena state agency y is a Responsible Agency or otherwise
$ has jurisdiction by law with respect to the project.
(3) Draft E1S's
and Negative Declarations preparedpursuant to
NEPA, the Federal Guidelines (Title 40 CFR, Part 1500,
i
com-
mencing with Section 1:00.1) and Parts I and II of Office of
:Management
��
* and Budget. Circular P,-95.
(c) Public agencies may send environmental documents to the State
Clearinghouse for review where L state agency has special expertise
with regard to the environmental impacts involved.
(d) When an EIR or Negative Ceclaration is submitted to the State
Clearinghouse for review, the review period set by the Lead Agency
shall be at least as long as the period provided in the state review
system operated by the State Clearinghouse. In the state review system,
the normal review period is 45 days for EIRs and 30 days for Negative
Declarations. In exceptional circumstances, The State Clearinghouse
may' set shorter review periods when requested by the Lead Agency.
(e) The numN-r of copies of an EIR or Negative Declaration submitted
to the State Clearinghouse shall not be less than ten unless the State
Clearinghouse approves a lower number in advance.
(f) While the Lead Agency is encouraged to contact the regional and
district offices of state Responsible Agencies; the Lead Agency must,:
in all cases, submit documents to the State Clearinghouse for distribution
in order to comply with the review requirements of this section..
projects of Statewide,:
15161.6.
>R.egonal or Areawide
Sletficance
(a) Projects meeting the criteria in this section shall be deemed to.
be of statewide, regional. or areawide significance.` EIRs or Negative
Declarations prepared by any public agency on a project 'described in
this section shall be submitted to the State Clearinghouse and should
be submitted also to the appropriate metropolitan area council, of
governments for review and comment.
(b) The Lead Agency shall determine that a proposed project is, of
statewide, regional, or areawide significance if, the meets any
.
_project
of the following, criteria:
(1) A proposed local general plan, element, or at endmert thereof
for which an Elk was prepared. ;
(2) A, project which would interfere with the atta,nment or
maintenance of State or national air quality standards including:
94
I anning Commission
�1. Steve Streeter^, Planning ;,�
,''U,13JECT ANNUAL REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON
Air 4a-49-08,10,,17,18 (Dan Hays, File 83-25)
DAJE March 18, 1967
Tr,�1 s; year marks the fourth annual review of the subject Development
A�-reement The memoranda from the prior annual reviews and the original
v;s vel opment Agreement are attached,
In .checking with the Building Division of Public Works , the: only
building permit applica+tions have been on AP 40-49-08 for Andrew Wood.
Th,ro f 'r rs,t. ;bu i 1 di ng perm i is were I ssued on November 18, 1985 � or =A
foundation of a storage building and for the warehouse and office Of
Spray Chem. The building permit for the storage building Was Issued on
Apr a l 23, 1986. No building perni l t appl i cat i ons have been issued or
,recently applied for on any of the other, parcels. None of the three
property aHners involved have contacted the Planning Department
concerning ,any proposed plans in the Immediate future.
Tkto T and d i v i s 1 ons app I', I cat i ons have had act 1 on 1 n tho past year. The
Plateau Park tentative Industrial subdivision, nineteen parcels cry 56.9
acres., on ,AP 40-49-17, was denied by the Advisory Agency on March; 10,,
1986, due ;primarily to expiration of the C411 forma Environmental
Quality Act timelines and lack of Health Department clearance The
pro Ject eras sub- iter�uent i Y referred back to the Advisory Agency, and'.on
f3er.:exi�ber 8. t986 denied due to fa i l ure to provide Information requested
by the Environmental Health Division on November- 1 1983. The Board of
Sup a}}v i sere uf+he 1 d the decision or the Advisory Agency, and deri,, led, the
,appeal' on the tentative' industrial subdiv Islon on January 6, 1987
Dart Haysthe applicant,. has instituted a lawsuit against the CQunty of
Butte claiming the tentative industrial subdivision map should be
recorded by ",operaticn of law ." In i' i ght of this pending l awsu 1' t ,
County, Counsel ad+v i ses that the annual, review OF the Development
Aot-eemer, t be continued at least, one month or until the lawsuit is
ressol +ved . As part of the Superior Court -action, a ru l Ing 1= expectF, d or7
whether the pro.pertY owner is in default under the d tsL' nprtrent Agr4ement
through use of the teM, "Junkyard site" ori the ti-,ntz�r, i ve map
The: second industrial subdivision map its foo Cattlemen's, Inc. ,, eleven
lots an 15ill acres, on AP 40-49-'18t Th"►s app l;icavton was received in
October1986. A l e*ter :was --karst to i:he applicant in November 14986
stating w h;'?jt i oformat. i on was neere� to make the application complete..
The a,pp l i cant • s tetter of Nov-;;riYer 20, 198b rerluested that their;
tentative map be held in,ali�syantleuntlt the issue of sewage treatment
pends and facilities is concluded.
r,
� aF • .� �-�,,,.o, :'•' ;,;,,,�J.. ;...v yr•/`�1//j� fl • ', - t : ��.. /r• � ° ' +,�l.0 `� � i -.
,�ss++ R\�Y�t`6. 7t�» P_�.'+�"1�'. �+re„ir�:✓+H ;:�FY.�.� �.�?.`'Y %`r.`fJu�I.M,ru`_ .0/ 4r4.✓r!�•?✓.y+".a�. Nr1�.�`i,,....s,..► ,:'✓r.y .0>y'�'s�.".�,lyfe,yVI.r ♦ ./!, r`J,�' �x= ".Vw,*j��i-°/Va� xa,���.„�.�r�,�'yN•�.���E. .r.W
/ Y}-♦♦yi� ,��• a`P�.ti..�✓.•��.,yyS8`a�'�1 �� j Y�✓ £.�?;F C•*leji• ,•_(Tx. :i 4 ,f �3�"Pt',7 ,�.L 3.t ff !r/l .� :'l-~�A.�. ••k.`� r/'`r�y` �,•�i.'""�. r/` ,�^�s'��'_�✓'j�rra/^�i•i� Yt-^ri„' 51�ryjy.•+ Yr I "•'/�f", »�'."t,xxjr' ,Y�''t-.♦{�.s/'�i•,�+i.:'` 4�
�i" ?�_�/1 �aPLPr�er{3 ',« i,"4<4+i(vE�+..,�..,�.��,,•.Ii`J''\I'r;"� �a. II. rP✓riatrr I Fi$PaE�iI�Y�' f�p i� 't at•c„ x�a”.'`.:�_7 ✓ F "� �•rr�� - "°" \F '� r �y1��/in Y�*�e'���'Y �.tClS>r� '.,J`�i \, .."«''\�•f�"frj�.1it� o.y5y .„♦4�° , Pri ,Ip�: \1/h`_tY4ef'.o.a.a*�`� `��.��a.ay,
i.� ./ E_�*.s'- ..� •••
�ay } ac ?4 t✓ :
111 �=j�/cL4#L�'�. `��� +!iC�C'•i, `"\` nJ;'drI♦•rY.a-A'«-'>"w. ta4 c „� ;sT`° ',r - ,Y��♦�.",•1'�y,.\♦, 4�,.j��'/�..•`�.•c% �'h.' af` ,JF }4 _ .,))Lae��\i(�`{ hi ♦+ MtV�Fy 1perS,! }ns�. �a���.j/ '�'��r�,X«f�
{-:>s!1;•.,(w'.xJY"-•, .�.` .r �!s�/ip�/�P`,r.y 47 •'�Bt± s+j/' '.�.� 'x✓%rt+'��Y7�1•A�r1 Nl �,°ILLL//i
'o'��,f1'tfitr_�' ';Ft�•Y. it�•% y��a
,Y�•"�•�i'ir.: •.., y,4 ,��,= ♦,� S"�r.`�J�y!!s•f,1♦a�a1/ ("/�i P �g`r'`°s < ,tlrs�'V,r<i�.�r/�`'; = " 3 F•.,�.�!•+.A �Jt.�•�� •,•./i,.'•,i «e;t.t.^.'a /;" . �� { .4Zir�ts.(jar?Y1C�.,4°'�.�,.;�Y ,,�7.irS¢p,/.JICl.,� 'I1s� "t�,J�
`'♦� i�t�Y
iY. •�` r w,E`.
lJ.*Y`.f"}.I•F;_+•�'�'f. ♦�i^:✓...�tI•tVI/J;�,,Rg� �,!/`'���(`/PYl+.I[/ / ''~♦aaa�'r��r�`(1 � "�Is. e5«�•l~ `I. c,! •Er
te•.lfi='I= a+"jf„
eyr~k
Y
.r•��'
✓�i�.� w. �-
ic
.R!1W /
y e
PRUJECJK
yvel
cr
Flume
'vrtiq",, 1 any6iiy78
Qldil
FILE
BU . CJ3NC'! PLANNING COMMISSI .ell .
r•.
Ill
.4E R MG DATES--
PPLMAINT
SCAL
MMMM
r�Y •^C.
c
/'di/I•
"
•,a.
1',✓ -o� 1
•
i
Y
- �wa�:aMo.sa�nnam,ems„s..stmrtwrxr.�.�araa,cnu._.� --
�aPL«.u.r♦w1..,rzna�zP.roc+:vs.+nwi.�+�raulxst�P.�k+�bc.p�w„a�c � �+` Pt='.��`1 '
n”"del®trtensdren�ai■ .
Infor-DepartMehl d" heMorandum
yyR
�. planning CommISSa.on H_
O,014
. Stephen A. Streeter, Planning
r
sua-4ECT Rezone to M-1 and Development Agreement Hays, for Dan: ,pent Road
$ and Highway 99 (85-25)
VATC- November 4, 1982
d
In the memorandum, sent to you on Octoberr
2l, 1982, it was indicated
that the Commission could hold a hearing on this project as early
as November l8. We belie�xe nOW that the earliest the
be heard. would be December 2. The reason; for that datprojectcoul.d.
later dx ore listed below. ,'Most of the comments stem from a
revs eet of the draft development agr
Counsel. eement br staff and County
}
1• Specific comments on the draft development agreement and
project are:
1. The agreement does not provide information about
what uses are to be developed, on the prOperty or
the timing of such development. Staff cannot make
a finding of compliance or f;1-ult without such �nfar
-nation.
2. The condition about submittal of high traffic generating
uses to Caltrans is not er.,forceable.
certainly review and recon.�tfCaltrans could
end but their input would
not lead to mandatory compli4nee.
s.. The agreement would expirE>
Or 1�t ten years. if little
no light industrial, deVal'opment were to
the �i-1 zoning would remaa.= on the proceed,
property without
a development agreement as a guarantee of the type
And duality of
development that would occur.
4o, it is unclear how tine devel.opm nr agreement would
affect future land divisions ox the paresis. it
appears that when a such: a land division, is -proPosed-
the County and the prODe'rty ownor would need to re vi
I
the agreement for its ap�lic:^µ►�ilt.
5, The develupment agreementj,s t�ciuival.ent to a u,se permit
with conditions,. it wouI d allow all I-1 (Dight Industrial )
uses, including those that rormal?y would xequire a use -
permit. The only e=xceptionjp Vroul:d be those specific
uses omitted. Tn other, e�orceonce bhe County and; the -"
abr'- ? icant sign the agreemr.ant,, there would be no further
hey crags for use permits or site deve.opment review,
3d; T E COUNTY PLANNING CON51ISSION
MI-NUTES November 4, 1982
r
ADD ITEMS
A. DAN HAYS RHONE TO NI-•1--yPDNT`7 ROND AREA
ane following Memorandum was delivered to the Commission earlier in the
+�v��aixig
rAMP M Stephen A. Streeter, Planning
Rezone 'to Al-1 and Dev4lopment Agreement for Dan Hays, Peutz Road.
and Highway 99 (83-25)
DAV8'4 November 4, 1982
In the memorandum sent to you on October 21, 1982, it was i'dicated
that. the Commission could hold a hearing on this project as early
as November 18. ZVe believe now that the earliest the project could
be heard would be December 2. The reasons for that date or a
later date, are listed bel.oir. Aiast cf the comments stem from. a
review of the draft development agreement by staff and County
Counsel.
I. Specific coriments on the draft development agreement and,
project are.
1. The agreement does not proirade information about
what uses are to be developed on the property ou`
the timing of such development., Staff caiirpt ,yak e
a, finding of compliance .or fault wthout sL.y , l-afor
-
coati. an
2 The condition about submitta,l :of high tra'Uic generating
� uses to Caltrans i� not enforceable. Caltrans could
certainly revi,eW' Mid recommend but their, input would
not lead to mandatory compliance
3. The agreement Woald expire in ten years. If Tattle
or no light ind,!astrial development ere to proceed
the lei-1 zoning would remain on the roperty tvithouL
a deve]opment agreement as a guara:ritee of the type
and quality oir development that would occur.
4 N It is unci;far how the developme:trt agreement Could;
�! affect fu, are land �ivlI.Sioh4 01 the parcels. It
appear,.-, that when a such a IaLlid division is proposed,
the Cour ty and the property ,owner would need toreview,
the agre;ient for its appl.icabili.ty,
5. The dFavelopment agreement i_�d equivalent to a use permit
with conditions. It would al low all M-1 (Light Industrial
I
SM-ME, COUNTY PLANNING
MCI.1501T,ES Noveriber 4, 19,82
uses, :including those that normally would require a use
pe-rm't. The only exceptions would be those specific
uses omitted,. In other words, once the County and the
applicant sign the agreement, there uroula be, no further
hearings for use permits or site development -.-.view.
b. The environmental evaluation should properly consider
more than the original traffic, visual and ftainage
impacts. Multi-family residential uses; light commercial
and general commercial uses could be plfced there unless
emitted from consideration. The only specific omissions
so far is a restriction for ",I, junkyard, for the purchase;
sale or storage of scrap rietal or any similar use". If
uses other than light industrial were proposed, the
County may have concerns beyond what could be addressed
a the time of a building permit,. As • an example, a
proposal for a shopping centex on part of the property
�. r�.iFgh.t; raise questi-ns as to the economic effects on
nearby corinercial centers, particularly those near and
cnter-Departmental Memoransm,
Planning Comrission,
Bettye Kircher, Planning Bi'vecto
Hays Rezone 8,3-25
r
.VA, 4'tr- December: 2, 198
The applicant's representative, Earl Nelson, Planning
Staff, Alan Burchett, Mr, Hays' attorney and County Counsel
Del S emsen met on Friday,_ .'1'ovember l9th to discuss the develop-
ment agreement, that was submitted to your Cormission.
The concerns raised by staff in a letter to Day Hays on
November 12, 1982 were discussed "and it was agreed that an amendeddevelopment agreement would be submitted as quickly as possible
prior to your Commissions' hearing this evening,
"x"he amended agreement was to have limited the types of
land use by percentages, i.e. Industrial (without a Use
Permit}, o Commercial, o open space, Industrial
(synI t igou�d normally requ�..re a Use Permit) "1;he agreement was
to also clearly state, the land uses that would not be a.11o ved,;
i.e. Residential., junk yards, etc.
Inasmuch as when. an agreement i's -entered into, additional I
review cannot be required pursuant to a Use Permit, the condi-
tions that would normally be imposed:: in these instances must
become a part of the agreement.
One copy, of the amended agreement was delivered to the
Planning Office this rio;rnin4, tlerebr providing little time for
staff to, review and comment,, and no time for your -Commission to
review prior to the scheduled hearing.
The amended agreement does limit the percentages of land,'
use by type, it also states the prohibited land uses,
fihe traffic assessment, pages 8 and 9, does :not conform
to the range of use that could occur, and, therefore, does nut:
provide a, reasonable assumption of traffic impacts.
Addi,tionall Count Counsel has not 'cad a,, o o'rtun ty ,
Y, Y conforma:ty
to review and comment ori the amended: agre•enent fo,�
to R6 -solution 812,29 (Development Aureements)`„ and the
proper 1ega.1 iana age.
BAX sb
CattlemeiT� $
250 Dutton Avenue
Santa Rosa, CA 9594,)
Fie: Annual Review of Development.
Agreement,, File 83-25, AP A6 -Au -,c
May 13, 1988
Dan and Jean Hays
P.O. Box 304?
Chico, CA 95927
W Annual Review of Development
Agreement,, Pile 83-25, AP 401449-10
Dear Mr. Hays:
At the regular meeting of the Butte Coun4y Planning Commission held
May 12, 1988,, the public hearing was continued open to July 14, 1,988
at 9:00 a.m, to consider review of your Development Agreement for
compliance with Or' dinance too_. 2342:
This meeting will be held in the Board of Supervisors' Roam, 25 County
Center Drive, Oroville,, California:
Should you have any gtiPstions regarding this matters please contact
this office between 10:00 a.m, and 3.00 p,m,
Sincerely,
B. A. Kircher
Director of Planning
William A. Turpin
Senot Planner
WAT'lr
AM
ORDINANCE NO.
2333 1
AN ORDINANCE ZONING A PORTIONOF THE COUNTY of
BUTTE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AN +IAi-1"
(LIGHT k
INDUSTRIAL) DISTRICT„ PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 24-29.
The Board of Supervisors of the county of Butte, State of
�11
rCalifornia, under and pursuant to Chapter 24_29 of the Butte Count
Z
y r
.Code of said ,County DO ORDAIN as foil ovsc
SECTION 14 The hereinafter described area situated in
t
as
lithe County of Butte, State of California, shall be and i �
tis hereby
'Czoned as an I'M -.I,, (Light Industrial) District, and such area
shall �
e sub'jec't to the restrictions and restricted uses and regulations
f
ursuant to Butte County Code Sec. 24-114,'
9,
i
Said area so zoned being located in the unincorporated G
10 area of Butte County, Chico, more particularly described as follows: r
11
All that certain, real property situate in the Count
of Butte:, State of California, described
as followsl
I-ARCEL 1 Beginning at a concrete monument where the
line between the properties of the
14?
Chas F. Lott Land
Co. and the Leland Stanford Junior Universit Intersects
the easterly line:
15
of the Rancho Esquon,1Vhichyline for the
Purpose of this description will be considered as bearing
o ,
N 40 21
,,
W; thence aloni the line between the Lott and
Stanford properties S 89 49,1/20
16
Wo 1999.4 'ft. to a point,
in the center of the County Road from Chico to Oroville
3?
As said road was located prior to January 1, 1921; thence
aloft said S road as the
is
seine teas located cated prior to
January 1; 192.1 S 526 132, E 1336. S ft. - 'thence :, 69°
q
59' B, 932'.9 ft.; thence S 41° 28 � E 2226.2 ;ffi. 1 to the
point of illtersection of the said County Road
s
with the:
County road leading to: Cherokee.; thence 'along said
2#3
Cherokee Road N 88`O 38' E 982.0°ft. to a concrete monument
on the easterly line of the': Rancho Esauon bean the N
Corner of fractional
1 i
Section 36;1T21N F.2E MDB' M; thence
c,... ft.
aloft said . d Rancho line to the
point of beginning.3597. 8
Crs
EXCEPTING THEREFROM a strip of land 80 ft. wide as
ddescribed in
24"'�
aL deed from William M. ;Bradshaw et ut to
Mabel, Claire Safford dated February 5, 1941 and
recorded
February 6 T9A1 zn Book 258 of Butte County Oficial
Record y ' ' .
Records* Page
2D
at 241.
2°' +
PARCEL 2: Lot, Numbered 3 of the SE 1/4 of Sec. 26,
T21N R2E 11DB 01
,t
P 367, CERTIPtemo MAIL
_ a
NO INSURANCE COVEp4 PAVI
NOT FOR INTERNATIOO.
lIPR
OVIp
.,,���1*Sce Reve�tj
an Hays
Stroot pnn Nc.
arttflad Fos
Juacla! DollVory Foo
ctod' DoltVotY Feae:
FS*turn R o Y�owln�
whom and and D
ft4"Rhto
S"cei t olFvo.o
'iFata. Rl Si dlnnhq to
crn . Atidreset+tfny
" `€03'A L posfs6e and F
ea$
Pz.atrnark or:0oto
0
c�
00
F�
a
Cr,,nplete Moms 1, 2, 3, 2nd A, '
3 Add your addtess Ili the"" RETURN TO'
spaco on retersa.
(COt1SUI,T POSTMASTER FOR FEES)
i, ?Be I01I4v,Ing sawide I$ requetllod (cheek one).
a` X Sh4:
' .... it
UNITED STATES POSTA'L, SERVICE
Ot:FI@tat. tit!$INESS F44*
SENDER INSTRUCTIONS
Rtrrtytut name, oddreat, and ZIP Cato In the &pact burr. ZVORMIMMOB
• CamP a t, 2; 0 and' 1 on Ua Vara ae. M
ki
ACac3 to hoai of aritcta N e�3:op&tmtt&, {
otberpt&a aft to b&ck of aRlale,`
Wells W* "Return Receipt Reque&tad" pEHALTY FOR PRIVATE
tdixcendio Dumb&r. USE, $306
RETURN
Butte County P1awung
(Name of Solder), "
7 County Center Drive
(Street or F.Q, Soy) t
dile 83-25 Oro,y lle, CA ,9 -96,5
(City, Stats, arts ZIP (:o e)
F &,AND OF NATURAt WEALTH ANt.1 8CAUTY
PLANNING COIAMISSION
I COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLF, CALIP00141A 9570
RETURN RECEIPT R.92UESTED PHONE- $24-11601
March .0, 1984
Dan Hays
P. 04 Box 3040
Chico, CA 95927
RE! Annual Revliaw of Development Agreement on AP 40-11-22'
6 7
APPrWDIX F1,
NOTICE OF DhTERMINATTON '
•
TO Secretary :dor Resources
IP
ED 141.6 Ninth Streot, Ruom 1311�
Sacramento, CA 9_587,
MAR 2 4 1983
r� County Clerk, County of Butte ELU,11g0RM,BILICis,����r?yClcs�
1 25 County Canter Drive
Orovil.le, CA 9S9tiy=-.,�.,1'� ' OI�t�ty
PROM Planning Depar trent
7 County Center Drive
Orovii,le, CA 95965 (Piled)
SUWVCT Filiizg of Notice of Determination in Compliance with
Section 211.08 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code
,_.. 82-10-06-0°1�w_3-25
Project Title Rezone fx•om A-2 and A-40 to M-1 with. a Development
_ . re e me n t Q P d r - � � .. �2..,�-2,3.:;�2.�..,•,� ._a�______� � �,.
State Clearinghouse Number (If submitted.to State Cieaz•znghouse��
81082.502
Contact Persons Telephone Number
�Sar_se P1xzSg_or (9161 534-4601
Project Location. East and west sides of St. ffivrY 99 north and sou h
of Durham-OviI�and Peritz `Road;, Butte Coll e e Durha
j •p on 7 mY1es southeast 0 CI ---1111 — ."" m into change,
ro ect Descrrti
Rezone from A-2 and A-40 to m-1 (Light Industrial) for 82.6 a ices,
including Ord, No. 7,342. entered into 3/15/83, approving a Developme t
Agreement forcertainreal property located' at the StNtay 99 and D�.rham-
or"o�vi.11.e ffit y Pentz Road interchange, St.
This is to advise that the Butx:r County Boardervisors_
( Lead. Al envy)
has made the ollotring determinations regarding the above-described
project:
1. The project E3 wi1,1have a si:gni�-icant effect on
the environment.
iV;1.1 not
An Environmental Impact Deport. was Prepared for this
project pursuant to the provisions of Cr QA1 and was
Certified as roquire& by Section 1.508 ; g 1 14
Administrative Co:d0:. California
A Negative Declaration was prepared fOr this project
pursuant to the provisions o£ CEQA Aapy of the
Negative' Dec] arati.on may be examined at the Planning
`7 CGUnty Ceratr?riveDepartmen, ,Oroville, CA 95965*
S. A Notice of Exemption was filed i,x�c;ic�atxng this pr
is exet.�pt .frU�;tn.iron�ncct.l1 rr�vietr.
A statt�ment pf overriding Coitsi°de'rati.on � was, was not
adopted' for this project,.
5.4ttigaticn measures adopted by the 7,ear1 ,Agency to reduce
` the imparts or thea approved i*
pp pro) aY e
La ted within the Development A'grq),qment, pa es _7
{t
'Copy OT the Develoatpent Agreement is on
file at 7 CountyCenter.Dtive
w
OroviXle. S. � at -tire
'Ma5489 Stephen A. Strenieter
'March h 7'2 � 193
Senior Planner
Da to ii y
' APPENDIX (3'
AiEGATrvE D:cbARAPxoV 9,3011 MING ENVIE pNT,AL IMPEL
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that thtr project described below 11as been
reviewed pursuant to the
provi,saons of the California Environmental
Quality Act �f 1970 (Public Resources Code 21100
et. se
determination has been made that it will if and a.
- not have, a significant
effect upon the
environment-. 83.25
Log 82-10-06-01
a
AP40-13-22,23,24
DESCRIPTION OP PROJtCT Rezone from A-2' and. A-40, ;;o M-1 ip�cluding a
Development Agreement
-- Ord. No. 2342 entered into the 15thday of
March, 1983, approving Develop. Agreement for certain real
LOCATION
property
OF PROJECT: located at the St. H«y 99 and Dui harp-O'roville Hwy
East and west sides of St. E"%qy
{
Peutz Road interchange.
99, n and s of Durham-Oroville Hivy and Pentz Road Butte College/
NA14E AND ADDRESS OP PROJECT
APPLICANT: Durham interchange, '7 miles se
Dan (Gays Ringel & Assoc. of Chico.
P. 0. Box .3040 3.31 Wall Street
Chico, CA 950'27 Chico, CA 95926
5-
AITT&GATION MEASURES;
Listed within the Development Agreement, pages S-
A copy of the initial study regarding the environmental
effect
of this project is on file at 7 County Center- Drive, Orovi?le.
This study was:
Adopted as 'presented:
Adopted with changes, Specific modifications and
supporting reasons are attached.
7.
A public hearing on this Negative Declaration was held by the
decision matting body.
Hearing Body Butte County Board of Supervisors
Date of Determination March 1.5, 198'3
Determinatj6n
On the basis of the initial study of environmental impact., the
information presented at hearings, comments
received on the
proposal and our own knowledge and independent research.-
esearch;We
Wefixed the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant
effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARA�Ifi is
hereby adopted,
We fitid that the Project COULD have a sign ,ficant of fect
fS�on the environment but will not in this case bec;auso� of
attached mitigation measures described in item S above
which are by this reference made conditin
ans.of project;,
a�oxtedl. A condS.t onal ',NEGA�".1�iE DECLARAi'I()Iq,is, hereby
P
3.9 ture
.pane Dolan, Chair
Saar of Supervisors
Title
MAR 3 1983
_
Date
q
y t ` •' , .1 , /� � � ay, * t', A 1 M'7�P'�, � 1t i' �� 'r�
n v
a
` ' ^� •' it �r M;i f f t �.''/ � � M � �
,'tip a
� ���° Yh L •.{ L �I � � ���� � �. � 4 t �+ 51,,E --� ��
Y �.,: 1 a r.• 1, 4 tai�„a", � '+ ��h ,. ,
1/ 1
qjf ,Y• J \. 1, � L
' It C' T• y�tVM
r
1`, ��t`'Y'r• I� 1` , t r d_ .la��t } .t,. F
r pfd
Y
i i ° J } �' ditlr • ` l�z'�r. Y .a ' r Iii
" J�y� elt Mit•RI 1' •" 1 1
1M �'
L'.
'� I {r • i� r �
\ r
.r ;Yd sa� si
t
t r
PY
..eL •f—
4 '. Y .
,•••,.QWI"vmv-za4uUVNI?ctNICt€UKIVE
OROVILLE, GAL,IPORNIA 95935.3375
Telephone: 534.4541
ta9f,� 3�>v fi Jntir. Clerk, Nitea Lindquist 5344951
JxFsltt'Gti�� r'Aw%, Boarid of Su o avisoei, Cathy Fitts 534-4371
,zdmrj0pr Pbok order,,Owam Ferland S i4.469l
January 19, 198
Dan days
P.O. Box 3040
Chico, Ca. 95927
Re Rezone and Development agreement,
File 8s-2'
�Af�O1` cki1FOBNiA—rsnr�s�ostrArlcsF+ �cseKrY ` "
-� _---
�1�EPARTMFNT �OF TRANSPORTATION
eaMur'C, � uaa��t� ��, ca����oF
smmml ;3
' `o l epbon,e ( 916) 741-4277
aanuary 17 19$3
U �Ut-99
Hays Rezone
Butte County
Board of supervisors BuifeCo. Planning Comm.
7_5 County Center ,Drive
OrOville CA 95965 JAN 2u 1983
Attention Ms Eleanor Becker., County Clerk pcnvr�ier Catitctrpi;
f
Dear 14embers of the Board:
' Caltrans. District: 3, has received the notice of
public
regarding the Dan Hay's rezone of property on both sides oaring
Highway 99 at P'entz £toad.
It is our understanding that a
negative declaration has been adopted for this it
being re -submitted folwhich is
lowing em,earlier denial by the Board.
i
We wish to re --emphasize our previous concernsas expressed to
the Butte County planning Department in
the attached ]ester's
dated November 2 and DecembQr 7 1982.
prepared for tht!project indicates that 'Righwayx99acouldment opera.te
at level of service E or wozse. Caltrans does not accept a
1eve1 of service E,j Which equates Lo unstable flows and
Momentary_ stoppages,
in the rezone is approved, we urge that the controls as outlined
in the proposed development agreement: be main
include rehese
duction of the industrially designatednland,Tsubm trtal
cif plans for, 'high traffic land uses to Caltrans for approval,
and provision of facilities to enhance Count o
tr�artsportation yPeratedpbic
such as bus turnouts and bus, shelters,
Sincerely,
LEO L7.; TROMBATORE
District Director of Transportation
1 =i D. < Skidmore
Chief, EnvironmentaX Branch
Ata ach.
h .
r ;,ya' r,
* fpAJV1A�—TRpWSPAftTATJON A.tEPICY kGM11F1b G. BpOMiN 1R � vov�roor
,p,•�iw.�"'�"^"^"'-a' ....•"�....+�..•+—..... ""^'ter -, F""'^_`{..,...`—"'�,^"��..�,,�.�.��a1i.�..�CW�.°:4.�""^"^.���.7:r
9'�,5-P'ART MENT OF TRANSPORIATION
r , s}t ?3K 911, IAA itMAtE 95901
,T -vt one (916) 674-4362
December 7, 1932
93•Bu"t-99'-24 ,Ot
Htya :incus tt ial and.
Commercial Dovelopment
Mr'. Steve Streeter
Butte County Panning Department
County Center .Drive
Orovill e, CA 95965
Dear Mr. Streeter:
s ,
Bkiard of Supervisors
`d+r,
Planning
;Wr r: DWI Clays Rezone - File 83-25 - Suggested Motion
January 1.3, 198
ifs is to decision of the Board of Supervisors to approve
this rezone the sup
motion is as follows
�`� . Find that the environmental
g$�este
the requirements hifornia Environmbeen ents can.,ide"red,
h9ve been completed and adopt, a Mitigated NegativeuDeclaratio
regarding env ronmental impact; and n
Ew Find the pxoject substantially in conformity with the policies
Of the Butte County General Plan; and
�.. Enter into a development agreement
Ctimmssian's minutes of December 9 C1982as mend:ed in 'the Planning
89 L-229, fort ert : ) pursuant to Resolution
H�s pro': p ) identified as AP 44-1�-22 23„ and 24
y ) ,t subJ ect to the ;following conditions: ' (Dan
l All cond,itioris presently listed in the development agreement,
g nt.
2. Any modifications that County, Counsel may recornmen:d.
Adciitional.ly, for uses normally requiring a use, permit in „he M�1
Zane
P
PlY with applicable regulations of the .Butte County Air
ollution Control District,
2. Comply with applicable regulations of the State Regional
3 a.ter Quality C3ontrol Board for d sp,asal of wastew�ier
and hazardous Wastes.
5;, Meet the requirements of, the 'Unif
as administered - orm Fire Code, 1979 ed ti4..x
'e the butte County Five DeparLm nt�tCA
Department of forestry,
4. Any Modifications that County C..Ow!8el may Teco,Pmend
D. Adop'40 It an, Ordinance rezoning AR 40-13- 2, 3, and 24 from A-Z;
and �A-to -I `Dan. Hays) only, after rhe da�reloment a reeme t
s ,kull eXecuted. n
I1,,
RE201M REPORT
Applicant; Dan Hays
Same _
i'
Requ . t: rezone frOM A-2 and A-40 to T1-1
«( !;� .t7 i W s i d e s. o f Ji'WY . 9 9, Sssides of Durham-Orovzlle
1114Y4 Fen,.tz Road, Butte College/:Durham interchange, i miles, SF of
Chico-
Date Acti.ola RegUested; 10j6/82
Number of Parcels: 3
85.34 acre
Arre�tge
alanring Commi o ion y irdin. s. A. Find that the environmental documents
have been considered, the Y•equ.rements of the Califarnia Environmental,
Ouali-t'�p Act have been completed and recommend adnt2tion of a �f t�ateci.
�`regata�ve Declaration ,--egarding; environmental impact; and B , Find the
graZet�t substantially in conformity with the„_pol cies of the Butte County►
a naval Plan; and C. Recommend that t}o Board of Supervisors enter into
a deve;xopment agreement as amended and conditioned in the Flannin
CommissiOnIs minutes of .December. 9; 1982
fP ) pursuant to Resolution 51-22,
ar . arty+. xcye.ed as A1� 40-13-22 • 23�and 24
'Flianni
ng ' ommiszion Aatiox>: D Recommend that the Board of Supervisors
adopt an ordinance rezoning AP 4013-22, 23, and 14 from, A-2 and A-46
to hi--S.
..... (Daft Hays only after the development agreement is ful,l,y*
e.xocuti.d.
a kte
5 Commassionars Behunin, Bennett, AV is and Schee{:ex ;.
i� C�allrman Lambert,
i : No'one,,
A 4S AM No tine , _
.+
-
:irA N CAWFOPNIA TRANSPORTAT(dN AGENCY
EDMUND G. BROWN JR.. Governor
> OF TRANSPORTATION
♦ ap" yRTMENi'
Got-
.F s, 3t11 !l 1, M:ARYSVILLE 95901
phone,(916) 614-4362
s
December 7, 1982
03 -But -99-24.0+
Hays Industrial. and
Commercial Development,
Mfr. Steve Streeter
Dutte County Planning Department
County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Dear Mr. Streeter:
j In response to your, telep1hone request,
of this date, attached
is Caltransasseasment of traffic impacts
on Route 99 based
on 25% site dt .elopment as stated. in
the proposed Hays
Industrial and Commercial Development
project adjacent to the
Pentz Road Interchange. More intense
development of the
proposed project: will cause proportionally aaverse impacts to
traffic flow on, Route 99;
Vary truly yours,
DEO J TROMRATORE
District Director of Transportation
ABy��
R. M. Nelson, Chief
Traffic' Operations .Branch A
Attachs
Co. Plannici Wim'
Butte.
E 9
QrtA�ge,
�_� ...
w�. ✓
DATE:
ASSESSMENT:
LOC"TION .f .
DESMIPTION/ "
a
CURRENT TRAFFIC"
ON STATE MN. NO. OF STATE HWY.
LANES
19 9/ .ADT
LEVEL SER. A
PK. !JR. -WAY s °C IN PK HR.
PK, HR, I-WAY
LEVEL OF SERVICE
PAGE NO t IN REPORT
,
UNITS
ACRES
DU%AC
DENSITY: LOW, MEDIU;rt, HIGH
TRIP GtN4
FACTOR"
TRIPS ENTERING STATE HWY.: AD'S
% INCt,:EASE IN ADT
PK.
IIEW PEAK HOUR: 2 -WAY I -WAY
IfEW LEVEL OF SERVICE
$..7'�'[. l• ; ,;.i��4"`tY i'. ,,r�i+.4 ,''jxa �.f' %G `�
!',.'do �- MH
'�'r��� x
4o e
r
1i P k Q' w.V M n
t.� b
x i
r
fitter -Depart Mentalemorandun
Planning Comnission
Bettyercxex, Planning DiTact
0
,i 1JCf, flays Rozone 83_25
. M December 2, 198
The applicant's representative ]Marl. ;
1
its
PLANNING COMMISSIgN`-
7 COUNTY CEN'T'ER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE. 524.4601 I
Notrember 12, 1982 I
i
Dan Hays
P.O. Box 3040
Chico, Ca. 95927
Re Rezone to M-1 and Development Agreement,,
Pentz Road and, Highttay 9.9, File 83-2.5
Dear, hlr. Hays
In reviewing the draft development agreement and traffic assessment,
for this proposal, the follotting comments and requests for informa
tion have come to mind
1. A response to the Caltrans letter of November 2, 1,982 is re
quested. We are attempting to reconcile the disparity between
the traffic ,projections of Caltrans and those contained in the
traffic assessment for the project. Earlier projections from
Caltrans (contained in a. :letter dated. September 14, 1981) in-
dicated traffic generation to be 3' to 4 times higher than vthat
is indicated in. the traffic assessment.
2:. Traffic assessment lists five cammerci�l and tto indLtstrial
classifications, As indicated in the memorandlum to the Planning,
COM;missi o , of November 4. the draft development agreement does
not presently indicate specific uses other than to exclude junk
yards (from the range of uses .allowed under m 1 'Zonin
g� . i:e ttiould
also recommend the exclusioxt of the manufacturing uses and obj e.'
tionable industrial uses'listed under uses requiring a use per-
mit for the M-1 zone,, A solution would be to tie the traffic
assessment to the; development agreement in some mannex. ln�
clus,ion of the proposed Land Use Map and the list of proposed
uses per parcel would m,ke a great difference in our review and
the enVironmental determination for the project.
3. .A, large scale cop} of the exhibits and the trafficstudy is re-
quested. The traffic data map (Figure 2) and theh proposed Land
ex;tap (Map are the two exhibits that are needed, The
exhibits, at a larger,scale,would assist in interpretation and,
for use at the upconing public hearings.
r�
Dan -plays
page -2 -
November 12 198
4 Caltrans has tequc.ts'ted the opportunity to re lieu the: specific
deve'l'opment plan's as they become available in ryrder to more
completely asses-;; any traffic impacts. Accord: rig to County
Counsel, your props ,.,sill regarding the submittal of development
plans for 'high tra.►:fic generating uses raises the question of
enforcement and coy,�pl iance in the event that Caltrans requested
a restriction of a. proposed developmen .
A brief discussion atbout a traffic signal appears on Page 2 of
the traffic assessment. Are you proposing that a condition
be added to the development agreement for the future installa-
tion: of a traffic signal once signal warrants are reached?
This determination would be made by the Department of Public
k'orks with input as required, from Caltrans
b,. If yourntent is to lin
i't othe commercial uses to those listed
in the traffic assessrtent, it would be appropriate to exclude
the uses requiring a use permit fro -in the development agreement
as well:
A response to the above-mentioned items is requested as soon as
possible, preferably by Wednesday, November 17, 1982. We will be
malli.ng the Planning C7tsm ssioners the environmental review
check -list as ;modified.. 11,1e intend to deliver the development agreement'
m grid traffic assessment to them on' November 18. Resolution of the
<gtrestions and concerns outlined is necessary in order to adequately
mitigate the potentially significant impacts, Without adequate
mitigation, 'the planning Department will be recommending that an
environmental impact report (Elk) be prepared for the project puf=
,suant to' the requirements ,of the California Environmental Quality
Act
If further clarification is needed, please contact our office.,
S' cerely,,
ephen reeter,
Senior Planner_
SAS1 r
ccr Alan 8urchet
Earl D. Nelson and Assoc.
;I
l
8'i-ot��as A
DISCUSSRO OF $?-t+,'iitOMMNTAL MWATIft (continued) F
-
conclusiowt The g9virontontal Raviev Department will rontlnua �
_
to work with the applicant about possible zaran% to witigate pitsatial.
Impacts. CanditionAl toning for the M-1 zoning district is being,
vaplored as"a sodas to mitigate the is --°-its cr traffic. arseinage,
and aesthetics. d Specific Plan, in sccor�tance 'with Soccl*n 654SO
through 6SSSS of the Government Code, is s^cziser option.. the
—
fsctor this spmcific pro}ect pcints out is the nead for site davgl-
opaonx review of industrial projects;: Por projects in urban srsnr,,
the Building Forsait Orditanca (hter Zbc Article 11) prOvid= s _
means to.require curbs, gutters, sidevalks drainage facil,ititss and
ted Ixproxements Revision of the existing PkC tone to allow1Aausxrial
=22uses ;ay be a fetor' ioptivii.
Thrprctpat.Y will
#irequire 6 land division to segregate the Yhrat,
on* the
port of property} as three par4als�Through that prosess"
as. well As individual`parels,
potential subdivis€o:t of the it --
W ll be possible to add some ri.tigation measure* though site
development review, for specific project& mould not occur. !mother
opportunity for review may be afforded for any utar or c"binatlos
g
of uses which would require a eevage disposal permit under the -
heTheapplicant
Thea pp,lidantcan rertainly take Stept to control the zre6l�a�r. jt
design aid other visual' features through covenants, condi3ona „md
raatrlctions-. however,, the County cannot depend ou deed restrictions
to ensure the type, *-,d quality of a particular, development.
:L
i.ppdadia F - Palo 81 of 9
1
� 1
3