HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-30 ORDINANCE 10 OF 16Additional -discussion of the cumulative effects of .
development in the Doe Mil l fT4i.ttle Chico Creek Canyon' ,
area of Butte County can tie found on the followi.n
pages
of the Canyon Park EIR
Pale Discussion
Impact summary, and cemulutive significance
of all Foothill. Develojpme;ots
14
List of detvel.opments underway or approved
wheri original EIR was written (Nov. 1980)
26
Cumulative effect on fire protection
27
Cumulative effect on Sheriffs Department
t
28
Cumulative effect on energy demand
31
Analysis of impacts and cumulative Y'
significance,
6uPPxement to EIR -- Revised April 1982 ;
A map showing
the location of the projects addressed in this'
discussion is
attached. The area shown focuses on the Little
Chico Creek 'watershed.
La,md. division
activity in Se .tion 360 east of Highway 32 and north
Of Isom -Hall.,
includes tentative pari.el maps an AP 56-05-36, 44-,
60, 61 and 65.
Gatbis on One
The 10ard Will be considering au appeal for Marino
thes,i3
of parcels on June 15, 1982.
)VAnd division
activity to the east of the Bidwell Heights project
includes the Skiliin ftbdiVision (Env rostmental Development Xnr
divide
to 615 acres into 10 parcels of 11-173 acres and subsequent
divisions or proposals on 4 of those parcels,
•
,
i 1 • ,.
1 i Pbrort lti•,•.hIPA&' �•
1
11 1 sa f C
111 1 •, " « �u ' y, �� t
one
114 »a...
iii ,i ; 1',wM„wt?,, . / 1 ({ + ,,
a • • ,G 4'101 f � _ � . 1 Cw+ {..IM,I" '� ./'
It
• � s c
, •
Y ai. , b ♦ � i j •
• r • of j' , , , J i � 1 +r Y'• ,
v
d + .•witItM i3 1 `11 1 �`y ;!q �`r• +ao 1b !�` et•{-
.. ; i 4 •,P'+,,. as .. LL � .. %• • �.t ��; � � '.,
44 tV.
• ,. 1 i : , ± , , ,Itr ft 1 • j ` ,�i ( 1�A�11aNq � ' Cr+• + I f a'� y
r • r
:'i•: p-i..s.r.e,• •��J✓�Irl,l i :ori t ••�,` �11' 1 ��� 11 , , ` •
. �Ale>t: a ! 1• � �• •. ,.. '� 1 c � , • f. l 1 i i t.:�.l 7. � � ,3.1*
jV,
•. , Y at•. .•,•..• r ,•a . F•1 a•• • • {,. r:.fJ.rr, L;�o%1 p.'i'1•i��. ire. fir..• c., {y••ij,i i piY +;+ri..,•,rNe..�,i :^•• ••.aF ♦,:w sY
Is
1{C1l�� ` + ,1 r �' fit ,' ,) f"' It �j�y •1 r'o
!p{►'ii S: , i. ' 0' �' , v ly "r�'tyr�•j `1 �,�r �;`, i ( i' 6 Y ` 'f ..
,r
•. " 1d
1
' n
IN THE PROJECT AREA
r c • • ' p F F' •'•BVI &XMV Fb Fel
• P�1 X07 '.
, �l 1 ,. i J i� Y,r�� ii Q•� �.�p�
,iy ` • r. •� �tl '`• .r illy `t 1 / r�J�a:rlm:>r
• +. ,Irk ►^ � i• 1 t i
Iwr. V.
/
Mitigation pleasures for Cumulative Impacts for the ProRoo� °rl
Development Projects in the Vic pity of Canyon Park Es,. -s
The mitigation measures discussed below will require the
establishment of formal policies and regulations by the Butte
County Board of Supervisors to erasure implementation on a uni-
form basis. All of the recommended mitigations are feasible,
but require that the County enact enabling statutes to guide
project design and reduce adverse impacts upon t -he environment.
The simplest mechanism would be modiiieation of the County's
Foothill Residential Zone by adding performance' standards which w
would minimize, environmental and fiscal impacts.
The County must consider development of an impact fee
schedule which recovers all capital costs related to new de-
velopments and provides funds for long term maintenance and
operation of services and facilities. Impact fees can be as-
sassed according to the level of service provided and the
distance of the new project from existing areas being served.
A series of County Oervice areas could be established to pro-
vide the services fe,ar a fee related to the benefits received.
1. Wildlife
Canyon Park Estzteu was designed to minimize impacts upon
wildlife by clustPering units away from restrictive and essential.
habitat components such as food, water, shelter and reproductive
areas. Adequate separation of residential units from sensitive
areas and the provision of large undivided land areas reduces
I
dverse impacts upon wildlife. Other developments in the area
may not include these design consido atioaa.
Recommended Mit dations
Butte County ahoUld develop ala.nnin
p g policy or revise the
Foothill. Remdential Zone to require adequate separation of
residential development from essea,tial habitat areas and requires
access corri4ors between 'water, shelter, feeding and breeding
a.4ea6o `
Similar policies should also be established for archae-
ologic and rare or endangered plant sites.
Z. Erosion
When Butte County adopted, the 1979 Uniform Building Code,
regulations for grading on private property were included in
the code, (Chapter 741 Sect. 7001 et, sem. ),
4 > ix IS of Can'y'on Park
, "ti; Athe 1.9 �`� `
Recommended Mi{ gations
'Enforcement of these provisions would subject all construc-
tion grading to County review and :yelp eliminate some of the
less desirable practices which lead to excess erosion.
Additional policies can be established which require
standardized soil protection practices for all new projects
that are subject to County review.
3. Traffic
Although thepotential increase in traffic volume from
known development proposals is significant it need not create
adverse impacts since Highway 32 has adequate roadwa`,r capacity.
Specific intersection improvements, however, may be necessary.
Canyon park has access onto Humboldt Road and the developers
will improve the intersection of Humboldt and highway 34 to
provide for safe access. The majority of the other units
proposed for development will use Santos Way for access.
Required Mitigation
A left: turn pocket and acceleration -deceleration lane
must be provided for safe access at the intersection of Santos
Way and other access points along Highway 32,
4. Loss of open
Loss of open space is significant when there are major
reductions in visual quality, wildlife habitat and populations,
or in the potential to meet future planning or food production
needs.
Since most of the area has limited potential for economic
production of foods ego , beef production, because of transpor-
tation costs and limited soils, the mayor problems are reduc-
tion in V$8ual quality and wildlife populations. An obvious
solution is the clustering 8t buildings out of view. Clustering
also provides for greater expanses of open space, reducing im
pacts upon wildlife habitat and wildlife population.
Canyon Park Estates was designed to reduce visual and
wildlife impacts by using, only 50% of the possible 220+ build-
ing sites on the property, Tsom--Hall may develop the same _way:
Hidwel]: Heights, however, is both a conventional rural subdivision
with division of the property into lots of varying sizes, along
with some areas proposed for PA -C (Planned Area -Cluster developmen
r
F.� aommendeclitit ion
The County should establish a requirement f
development and use of vegetated buffers o en clustered
x°
of a revised Foothill Residential Zone.e, sc BeninB' as Anrt
Increased Demand for Public Services (s e
fire protecti n are covered No
t : ir.5 for
�,) .i f .�
P_ t c. i t e
Butte County has continued to
provide
rural and urban service levels without re a combination of
distance from existing areas beingserved.
discontinued or limited man Bard to location or
Other. counties
mediately after th'e y services in more remote areas im-
mediately of Proposi,tiOt 13,
Recommended 6iit anion `
_.
X• Establishment of Community Service areas
districts. with assessments made at the time of urs c
tentative tract a rezoning or
al
stage to PPrOval* Funds are required at this early
provide services or equipment at .the time the demand
i'ox` service or eq+'ipment is created..
. Addition of building standards that re
to be mora secure and fire roof
ordinances are already available and are being quire buildings
munities throughout this s, g ding 5ecurity
StaGndard buil
:ate. used in com-
3. County inspection service tees should be
include mileage and travel tame costs far ould development
to
than 15•-25 miles from the County ofi'ice P ants more
Providing that service.
4• Impact fe,w schedules should b
service levels if requested, e developed to r
e Would
level of service requested (above County,;
b Ovide
bility) and distance frCo current
the
y';a curant
om the agency the cepa..
P vidin�► Service.
F:. Fire Hazard
Fire hazard increases with development in more hda
vegetated areas and with increased dist
ance
rom , fire stations.
Recommended Citi aeons
1 • Establish a plan , to rov i
Or bpgrade eXistin P ide additional fire stations
designation. g.bnes based on the Ceneral plan land use
•
2,
The to.11owin.gshould be required as part off" a revised
. ...
Foothill
Residential Zone or specifi+� policy on new construction
in foothill
areas:
a.
Fire fuel reduction around new roads and construction
sites.
b.
Use of non-flammable or fire resistant siding and roof
materials on new construction.
C.
Provision of an adequate water storage and supply
system for fire suppression eg., hydrants adjacent
to homes on subdivisions up to 3-5 acres .
d.
A specific mitigation for the Canyon P.nrk - Doe Mill
Ridge ares, .s provision for a fire station, fire en-
'100
gine, and volunteer company before an additIonal
houses are built.
l
1
•.
This Ordinance is not utilized extensively at present. Applictins
,
for subdivisions in the County have never been required td obtain
a permit for road work to date. The Public Works Department does
require the submittal of road and drainage plans in most cases-.
Condition 01, on the tentative list of conditions for approval,
reads: "Submit road and drainage plans to the Department of Public
Works for approval and install the required facilities". Planning
staff has not reviewed the road since a year and one half ago.
Clay Castleberry and io),,.n, Mendonsa of public Works plW1 to inspect
the road on Thursday morning.,
'Ju1y 22 if the road, as it presently
exists, including any improvements that might have been iiade, is
not adequate to jfioet Public Works standa�.rds it would have to be
redesigned aj�d eventually improved to comply.
aj�ce theae is possible litigation regarding the access
b_ project and recently completed road in the vicinity,f
road to thi,� Prow
it may be difficult to receive definitive information about the
existing road.
Cumulative jBpacts
The amount of Xnformation provided to date on cumulative,
impacts has been termed inadequate"by speakers at the recent :public.
hearings. l of detail would be more comprehensive had a
The levei
Specific
Plan been prepared for the Doe Mill Ridge area as proposed
all view
by County g µ
,Au
ust 19818.
However, lacking an over hand
us°t rely on the a.nformation at
staff an
of cumulative effects, staff m
about those projects that are, definitely proposed and merely
sp
eculate about what may happen on other lands in the vicinity.
If the vacant land in the area is assumed to develop at the maxim.
sta c
density allowed by
the General Plan and Zoning, an unreala.
-b-
AppendiX 15 - Canyon Park Estates EIR` 8131 (duly 1082
r r '
.F` figure would occur without ac cnourledginig site constraints such as
slope, soil depth,, wager availability, and access.
We will review further the exhibit submitted at the
hearing showing that a minimum of 1480 new lots would be created
in the area depicted on the map. In our earlier review of the area.,
tie had estimated that 620 new residential parcels would be created.
We were focusing our loo at currently proposed projects rather
thai, specula'ti.ng on potential land division activity. If time allows
we will review the two exhibits, the one submitted at the hearing
anti the ono prepared by Planning ,staff, to arrive at a reprised number
of potential residential lots We suspect a more accurate figure
lies somewhere between the 620 and, the 1480 figure
L
APPENDIX It
REPORT OV THE COHASSET/FOREST RANCH
PT ANr NG ARRA GokNITTSE
NOM This report is incorporated by reference" pet
section 15lr10 of the CVQA Guiaelines4 Copies
of this document are available upon request from
the Butte County Planning bepartment, 7 County
Center Drive, Oroville, CA 55565
&PPENDIX 'I
,
DEFINMONS OF LEVELS OF SERVICE
'
Levels of Service
116eti'e7-of-service concept is used .to define the relationship
betweena highway's traffic voluiiie and capacity,, and, tiiexefore
,
is an extremely useful tool in highway planning. The maximum
traffic volume that can by carried at any selected level,of
service is referred to as the "s,ervi,ce volu,Re'' for that level..
The llightaay Capacity Manual describes relative operating condi-
tions. for six levels of service which range fro; free flow to
forced flow traffic condition. (l)
Level of service, strictly defined, applies to a soction of
roadway of significant length. A service level describes how
the traffic volume level relates to reasonable driving speed,
comfort, convenience, economy, and safety. Five service levels
are utilized in Table 8, iahi fe Level "F", a forced flow .exceed-
ing 100 percent of a hioiu;iay''s capacity vas not included.
s
The Highway Capacity i,ianual defines six levels of service in the
following runner; (2)
Level of Service A describes a condition of fr e fIOIT with loin
vilLr►es an a f;. speed_,, Traffic density is loa with speeds
'ty
s, and physical roadway
controlled by zirx�,er desires, speed limits, an ,
dr... to the presence of other vehicles, all er mcan maintain
conditions. There is little or ro re5�.rzd dui
e p
o+ +� ver:►.. caat maintain
'their desired speeds wbtix little or no delay,
• s. c 4
Level of Service B is in a zone of stable flov#,, with operating
spse: s Fegrnnin to be restricted so»awhat by traffic conditions.
Dtivers still have reasonable freOdom to select their speeds
and lane of operation. Reductions in sped axe not wire asonable,
vil4th a low probabili°�y of traffic flow tieing restricted. The
I Aid tai �te:�t v . �,... of ttii s level. of
lower limit (lowest sp e , h ,.j
service hes been associated with service volumes used in the
desig Y of rural h ghways.
I.evol of Service C is sti.11 in the zone of stable flc:r, liut spLecl
andmaneuverat., are plore closely control led by the higher
('r) H� � }tti�i� y Ci^pac Ly ;Xinuttl, lti.�;`>.'�ay Reselxcti Hoard, Spec3.Al
^report 87, N;ati.onal Aca(temy of SCICncc:s - 'r�;�wiorial Research
Council., 19656
(2) Xt7ac1, Isis • 80-81
' o
t►e drivers are -restricted in thrix- frCe%lont
volume, ••Iast of ass. A'relatively
to select their own speed, chan�*e lanes, of p ,,r.rvice
sdtisfactory operating
-pe
red is still obtained,"tvi.th '"'
volumes per'nnps suitable fox urban design practices.
P ce U a proaches unstable flew, %4ith toleT- d Deer-
Level of S..rvi ' P affected by
atr n ; epees eing naintained though consi derably
o crating conditions. Fluctuations ill
volume aztcl
changes ill p
7CeStirictiOns to f;lOty' may cause eedon, to-ManeuV Y,�t d
temporary speeds. Drivers have little freedan
operating p but conditions can be toler3tecl
comfort aild convenience are to t
for short periods of time. °
era ce: E cannot be described by speed alone,, but
Level
of pxatinR speeds +L1ian in
represents operations at even lower opw
A' ;
htiaa
Frith volumes at or near the capacity of the 2�ig Y
but not always, in the ne i ghbor-
Level D.o ically,stoppages o
.,capac'ity,, speeds are CYp
hood of 30 mph.
Flow' is unstaiale, and there may be
mom2lltaxy durations :.
ed flow operation at 10111 'Speeds, '
fore
I;pvel of Service F describesThese conditions usu Y
w ere vo umes are elow capacity. u from a restriction
ueues of Vehicles backing p .
result from a y will be serving as a stara.ge
The section under study Speeds are xeducea.,
downstream. eak hour, periods
arts ox all of the p
area during p a es may occur for short or 7�ong p
substantially and stopp g
of ,time because of downstream co�.,�esta on
i
13
93
APPENDIX J
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON DEIR
1. California State Clearinghouse
2. Departmeat of California Highway 'patrol
3. California Department of Transportation
4. City of Chico, Planning Departmet.t
GEORGE DEUKMEIIAN, Govorrwr
5T�:E Of CALIFORNIA-•OFFICE OF TH° GOVERNOR
_ _ -- �?
AFFICE^OF RESOURCES, EIJERGY,
AND PERMIT ASSISTANCE
'140f) TENTH STREET -
SACRAMENTO. CA 95814
S December S, 1983
' D4r. . Stephen A. Streeter ,
Butte County planning tJroy111�, CAk0V1►a
7County Center Drive
Oroville, CA 95965
Subject: SCHN 83110802, State Highway 32
Dear Mr. Streeter: i ct Report
The state clearinghouse sukxnitted the above named drat Eilvironmental sed
• riad is closed and the cc"'-
selected to selected state agencies for review. The �•J_1 e% Pe u would like to discuss
Ents Of the individual. agency (ies) is (are) attached. xf you
concerns and reccdations, please contact the staff frau the appropriate
their _ .
agency (ies)
ou must include X111 cats and responses (A
When preparing the final F7R► Y
The certified FSR must be cgnsiderecl in the decis� the
Guidelines, Section 1516) yt. In addition, we urge you to respond dirtlY
rocess for the projec to theme incl the state Clearinghouse nuabex on
making P writing
coamienting agenCi (ies) �'
all correspondence.
(118 Cal. Ape. 3d
ary v. ifically? the
O }� 1981 Appellate Court decision riding rEview ccm= •
348) clarified requirea�ents for respo '
indicated that moments must be addressed an detail;, gavineSusshcxv the,
court not. accepted. The respo rejected-
- pecific costs and suggestions were est�on or comment to be rej
'' rted 171 �r.- "' ,
Of overriding s�3nifcsnce which required the sags
is must not be conclusory statements but must be su�.po
Responses to co»�n or lanatory information of an
pirical• or 'e�rii-�.ntal data, scient .tic auth must be a good faith, reasoned
}cine, The court further said that the -responses
analysis.
a' nifl.caza.t
In the event that the project is apornved without adequate : �i.ti Ration of sig
e 1e1 agency must mare written findings for each significant Effect and it
of fec 8t agency mUswita writteh stater�ent of ovnrridL.g 8nssnderatio -W, "or
must support its actions
ea+✓h >:rTnitigated signifirar►t e>"tc-ct (CX2 Gudel�res Sect on iSQ _o • ce of
,+ ;» u• scretj.onary approval fr= any state agency? the Notice
1f the projeo,. I
requires ci
termiract�n�tst be filed with the secs: ecary' Lortesources, as Well as with the
De , do please con ct x ice at (.016;) 444-0613 if you have any Vestions
County C] �r
Ll4 the @nVyr0nItt�.nta_.. reviE` PA.
'cic• ss*aboM
53.r�cere:.{
e=rrl g,cgQL
r
1r.Yli-g e
GC. R�SCl:�G2S »CirTCy
, ,� .._I A., ---
of'Calif.ornia Business, Transportation and Hensing Agency,
f
To : State Clearinghouse rate December 2, 1983
1.400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95BI4 File No.
Subject : DEIR FOR PUBLIC ROAD
CONNECTIONS TO STATE
ROUTE 32 NE OF CHICO
IN BUTTE COUNTY
From Department cf'California Highway Patrol
Valley Division
11336 Trade Center Drive .
P. 0. Box 8041
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-800
The California Highway Patrol. (CHP) has reviewed the Butte County
Draft Environmental Zmpact Report (DEIR) for public road approaches
to State Highway 32
The report contains an excellent discussion of the various issue
co>cern ng the project together with problems and mitigation
measures. However, the report does not specifically address the
issue concerning impacts ori traffic law enforcement.
The CH';' has a
mandated responsibility for traffic Law enforcement
services on all freeways and also on all local roadways other than
those within incorporated city areas4 in keeping with this
responsibility, the CHP is concerned with ,factors affecting high
way safety, the roadway environment for enforcement service
operations, and emergency plans. The CHP, therefore, respectfully`
urges that the DEIR for the public road connections to St--,--
Highway
tateHighway 32 be written to include an element discussing the 'impacts
of the project on traffic law enforcement services Furtheri we
also urge that the local office Of the CHP be consulted on
developing the issue for the report.
Lieutenant R A4 Oray, the Chico Area Commander; may be contacted
at 995 First Street, P. 0. Box 1.779, Chico, CA 95927, telephone
(916) 895-4444, for further information.
L. G. TUMTER, chief
cc4, Chico Area
STATE 4 CAUFORNIA--TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
TQEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 3
O. BOX 911, MARYSVIU.E' 95901
Telephone (916) 741-4277
July 1, 1983
iPORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Gowtnoi
z=W
11HCgIVED
jug 0 - 1983
t, NELSON MN500,
o3 -But -32
Highway 32
Road Approaches
Earl D. Nelson & Associates
330 Wall Street, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95926
Attention Mr. Bill Sands
Gentlemen:
Thank "you for the opportunity to review the draft EIR prepared
for the proposed public road connections to State Highway 52
between Forest Ranch and Chico. These road connections will
provide access to existing and future residential developmetit:
We concur with the finding that the increased traffic vol11.ie,3
generated by this project would not adversely affect level of
service on Highway 32. Since most of the traffic will be coming
from Chico and turningright, left -turn channelization would not
be required at this time. The County should be aware that if
the area west of Highway 32 develops, left -turn channelization
may be necessary at some future date.
Several corrections should 'be made in the air quality data on
page 17. r?-nbient air temperature should be 40-45 degrees.
Operations. mix for cold starts near the project area should be
around 60%, rather than 21%. These figures would then affect;
the compoSiLe emission factors in Table 2
The discussi)n of cultural resources on page 31 states that 1,0
evidence of prehistoric or early historic activities was
discovered However, on pages 32-33; the list of effects found
to be insi...I,ificant includes disturbance of archaeological
resources --n,, the highway corridor (Item #,8). If no sites were
discovered, this reference is misleading. In addition, the
archaeologieal report should include a map showing the areas
WP that were i r spected .
f,
Earl D. Nelson & Associates
Attention Mr. Bl]. .Sands.
Page 2
July 1, 1983
Caltrans requests the opportunity to review the final EIR,
Determination, will be submitted
which, along with the Notice of
to the California Transportation Commission for
by Caltrans
approval. The project will then be subject to Caltrans'
encroachment permit review.
SincErely, "
...
W. R. GREEN
District Director of Transportation
By
R. D. Skidmore
Chief, Environmental- Braiich
q
'. i
,STATE OF CALIFORNIA—YRANSPORTATION AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN 1R., QUVefnor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
VISTRICT 3
P. o. BoX 911, MARYSVILLE 93901
Telephone (916) 141-4277
July 29, 1983
4
03 -But -32
Public Road
Approaches
Mr. Earl D. Nelson & Associates
330 Wall Street
Suite 6
Chico, CA 95926
Attention Mr. Bill Sands
Gentlemen:
in response to your letter of July 13, 1983, Caltrans has
reviewed the amendments to the draft EIR for the construction
of three public road approaches onto Highway 32
We have found these amendments satisfactory and have completed
our initial review of, the draft EIR. We anticipate further
review under the CEQA process, which requires circulation by
the State Clearinghouse to other concerned State agencies.
Sincerely,
W. R. GREEN
District Director of Transportation
sy
R. D. Skidmore
Chief, Enviornmental Branch
Business and Transportat'igRV Agency
,ite of California " ..
.t E
illemoreandurra �•
Date: November 30, 1983
To _ Executive Officer 03 -But -32
state Clearinghouse File_ 03 -But Read.
1acr mento SCA e95814 Approaches
'.Sacramento.,
From DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Branch
District 3 ..
has reviewed the draft EZR for Subjects the construction of three
Ca]trans District 3: These connections would
public road connections to Highway 32 east of Chico.
highway -
provide access to several residential 'parcelslication tfor approval ast side of the
The draft E7R was prepa red as part of t PP
T
California Transportation Commission.
Caltrans has been concerned with the increased
As documented in the draft EIR, higher standard anxious
of substandard private drives to serve. new subdivisions. We are anxious to
use
work with the County and private develoapers4t provide
ethegfunding of and
°'sties. The final EiR should identify roaches, pending approval by the
ction of the road app
scheduling for constru
California Transportation Commission. :along with
',�1hen
final EIR is certified, it should be submitted to Caltrans,
a co 'the Notice of Determination (which shouldalsoentslwilwith e used in
p' for Resources xn Sacram-anto) ,
State oecretary
our project approval application,
additional questions on these comments, please contact Jeannie
�f there are an y
Baker at the above address, or telephone (916) 711- 9
8.
W. R. uRtM
District Director of Transportation
By
Brian j, Smith
Chief, Envitonmentai Branch
N -i N Ln
DEC 5 1983
OFFICE OF, 'LANNIMG
A N 0 REHI
i'LANNING OFFICE
n,.
r.
FIfIh and Main sltucefs
rYorCHlco
;NCJS11
Pv. Fk)x 3420 December 1 1983
C411co, CA 95427
'
(91C) EIJ5<Id51 '
ArSS 459.4851
Mr. Steve Streeter, Senior Planner
Co. VI" nning'm�
Butte County Planning Department p„14o
7 County Center Drive' C3[C 6 JaB3
Oroville, California 95965
(��OYt�h� Ga1ilPr�la1
SUBJ-# Responses to Draft EIR for State Highway 32
Dear, Steve:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above referenced
document. We are submitting the following comments relative to the
proposed project:
1 The cumulative traffic impact on SR 32 in the Chico Urban
area would appear to be significant. No mitigation is
proposed in the DEIR other than a reference to public
transit. ;
2. The traffic analysis referred to on page 35 does not appear
(at least not in its entirety) in appendix 1fG11 as stated.__
The DE19 does not adequately address cumulative traffic impacts on SR 32'
in She Chico urban area . This concern along with specific c mitigation. measures
should be included in the report.
Should you have any questions regarding our comment,,,, please feel free to
contact the Planning Office.
Sincerely,
Edwin R, Palmeri
Assistant Planner
ERP pkv
CP 11112
A-SC-4
APPENDIX K
SUNMR.Y 019 COMnNTS RECEIVED ON DEIR
AND RESPONSES
State Clearinghouse
COMMENT: "...Comments [received. on DET.R] must be addressed
in detail, giving reasons why the speceific comments tnd
suggestions were not. accepted. The responses must show facttrs
of overriding s-igni.ficance which required the suggestion or
comment to be rejected. Responses... must be supported by
empirical data, scientific authority or explanatory information
of any kind...Responses must be a good faith, reasoned analysis.'
COMMENT; "In the event that the project is approved wihout
adequate mitigation of significant effects, the lead agency mtist
make written findings for each significant effect and it must.
support its actions with a wirtten statement of overriding
considerations for each unmitigated significant effect (CCQA.
Guidelines Section 15088 and 15089)•"
'RESPONSE- Comments acknowledged: DEIR conforms to
guidelines and suggestions as directed by the State
Clearinghouse.
Department of California Highway Patrol
COMMENT: The DEIR "does not specifically address the issue
concerning impacts on traffic law enforcement."
ComEiEM "The CUP has a mandated responsibility for traffic
law enforcement services on all freeways and also on all local
roadways other than those within incorporated city areas... -The
CHP, therefore, respectfully urges that the DEIR for the public
road connections to State Plighway 32 be written to include ...the
imacts of the project on traffic lawenforcement services.
Further, we also urge that the local officr. of the CHP be
consultedon developing the issue for the 'report."
REgpONSE'! [Followi'ng responses submitted by tutte County
Planning Department.)
The California Highway patrol (OHP) emphasizes three concerns in
the third paragraph of the letter. They are concerned about Factor
affecting highway safety, the roadway environment far, enforcement
service operations, and emergency plans. Tri order to address these
factors, the letter suggests that an element be 'Included discussing
the impacts of the project on traffic la*W enforcement services:
Lieutenant R. A. Gray, Chico area commander, was consulted regarding
this letter. In terms of factors affecting highway safety,
g y
notes the sweeping curves near public road connections l (fid D9fe
House 'Road) and #3 (Altatina Drive). There is an elevation differ
-
House
of about 150 feet between the northerly toad connection and
the southerly road connection. Approval of the road connections
would result in additional traffic onto the highway at a location
where downhill traffic presents a hazard to vehicles entering
Highway 32 toward Chico. Weather conditions affect highway safety
as well. Fog sets in during certain days of winter months impeding.
traffic safety. B..sically, any change to the highway system, that
allows for additional cross traffic presents new potential hazards
to the through traffic pattern.
Another comment made in the CHP letter deals }with the roadway environ
meat for enforcement service operations The main comment made by
Lieutenant. Gray would be to consider deleting public road connection
42 (La Castana Drive). Elimination of one road connection is dis-
cussed as alternative 4 on pages 37 and 38 of the draft BIR. In
order to implement this option, a frontage road would'be built ....,
connecting La Castana Drive to 10 Mile House Road to the south.
Emergency ;plans were another concern mentioned by the CHP. Their
is ]sept available and open to
:k,1s,'dhnces. In the event of a fire or other emergency, the CHP
desire ;is to insure that access
and other x' evergency vehicles need to be able to re pond by way of
traversable access roads as well as the residents havi.nb an adequats
e
means to p �
escape a house fire or a wild fire, for instance. Helicopter
may be dispatchedi�� *lie event of emergencies Pram either �1�,C1e11ar►
Air Force Ease OT the RePing airport. Response tinter are in the
range of 25 minutes from eitF �,`+. ocati-on,
If 92 or more additional residences are apvoloped within
the project
area, the CHP would be impacted to the pointL,
additli onal CHp officev may be warrant,-d- There www""., i certainly be
increased accident potential with 107 dwelling ttnt.ts hi comparison
to the 15 that presently exist on the 1543 acres. �rehic�1tar speed
and sight clisCatice are critical elements affecting accidents'- Again,
the Clip recommends that two public road connoctions rather that'
three be approved. They believe that La Castana Drive gods not
warrant a full connecting Intersect•ion, _.
CHIS officers are on call for the Highway 32 corridor e=xtending east
of Chico. ` If an officet is dispatched from the C1r1I' office near the
intersection of Highway 32 and
cHsubect0xcahe IfshesCHpiofficer
approximately 10 minutes t
.the field, the response time
spolspatc:hed from a random Location zn attic
may be as much as 25�m nutes. There are times when they may p
Mary patrol the portion of Highway 32 between Chico and Forest
Ranch such as the seasons Of the year when logging trucks utilize
Highway 32 on a frequent bass.
CHP officers respond only to traffic
situations unless requested as backup for the Sheriff's department
or some other.law enforcement agency,
City of Chico, planning Department
COMMENT: Cumulative, traffic impact on SR 32 in the Chico
Urban area would appear to be significant. No mitigation other
than increased public transit is proposed.
RnLPONSE The DEIR has been revised to indicato that
cumulative traffic impacts on SR 32 are significantly adverse.
Additional mitigation measures have been included, although these
mitigations will only partially reduce the level of significance.
(Refer to Chapter XIV, pp. 39-40 in the DEIR for the revised
analysis.)
COMMENT: The traffic analysis referred to on page 35 [of
original DEIR] does not appear (at least in its entirety) in
Appendix G as stated.
RESPONSE: Cited traffic analyses were a reference to
attached Cumulative Impact Studies in Appendix G only.
Cumulative impacts section of original, DEIR has been
revised, including clarification of this point.
California llepartiaent of Transportation
[Note: Comment's submitted by Caltrans in correspondence
datedJuly 10 1.983 were incorporated into first revision of the
DEIR. Subsequent correspondence from Caltrans, dated July 29,
1983, indicates that incorporated amendments to the DEIR were
satisfactory.]
CO, MENTI "As documented the draft Elk, Caltrans has been
concernedWith the increased use of substandard private drives to
serve new subdivisions. We are anxious to work with the County
rand private developers to provide higher standard facilities.
the final EIR should identify a commitment to the funding of and
scheduling for construction, of the road approaches, pending
approval by the California Transportation Commission.
RESPONSE! Comment acknowledged. DtlR hi- 'peen revised to
include a mitigation re;airing a deposit of f4 sit'h the county
to improve public road approaches to Caltrl ':andards as a
condition. of approval for all proposed iaau divisions and
subdivisions served by those roads. Tbo DEIR ,also recommends
formation of an assessment district to maintd-,!n private roads.
(Refer to Mitiga*i.ons on page 31 of DEIR.)
w
a
The timing for implementing improvements to public road
approaches remains determinate-, since the decision to divide
property (in conformance with the county general plan and zoning
ordinances) largely remains within the purview of the private
developer. it should be noted that the county has recently
collected funds from a proposed development in the Study ,Area for
the purpose cited herein.
If
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
I.
SUMMARY
I
Ii.
INTRODUCTION
3
III.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
4
Ive
STATEMENT OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES
4
V.
GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT'S TECHNICAL,
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHAraCTERISTICS
5
Vi.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
5
VTI,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
12
VIII.
EFFECTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
31
IX..
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CAN BE
MITIGATED IF THE PROPOSAL IS IMPLEMENTED
32
X.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
33
Xi.
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
SHOULD THE 'PROPOSED PROJECT BE IMPLEMENTED
33
XII•
SHORT-TERM VS. LONG-TERM RESOURCE IMPACTS
3'3
X111i
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
34
XIV:
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
34
XV
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
35
XVI.
REFERENCES
39
XVIL
APPENDICES
40
A. Iftit .al EnVi.ronmetttaj Study
B. Botarmictal Survey Report
C. Archaeological Survey Repots
b. Butte County Land Ube Catogbtl,u wind Zones
t
1
TABLE of CONTEXTS (Continued)
E. CALTRANS Corrospondence and Schematics
F. Traffic Analysis Computations
G. Referenced Cumulative Impacts Studies
H. Correspondence Received
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1
Location lisp
2
2
Project Site
4a
3
Land Use Categories and Zones
3a
4
Original Study Areas Approved by Caltrans
Appendix U
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
1
1981. Traffic Volumes
9a
2
Composite Emission Factors
16
5
Mobile Source Emissions for 1932
17
4
Mobile Source Emissions for 1995
17
5
Distribution of Project Traffic
23
x. SUM9A22Y
This report addresses potential impacts to the State Highway
32 corridor and an estimated .1,543 acres of land (Project Study
Area) that may occur if the state and County approve three public.
road approaches to Highway 32. The proposed project is located
approximately 10 miles northeast of Chico.
Those impacts found not significant include: subsidence,
volcanism and soil hazards in the highway cortidor and Study
Area, and rocksli.des in the highway corridor; flooding and
Pollution of surface water from urban runoff in the highway
corridor; degradation of air quality in the highway corridor,
Study Area and county; an increase in traffic lintards and
Congestion in the highway corridor; noise intrusions the Study
Area; provision of utilities in the highway corridor and Study
Area; excessive energy consumption on or offthe project. site -
disturbance of archaeological resources in the highway corridor.
The following potential adverse impacts, which Vould
primarily occur in the Study Area, could be reduced to a leve!
of insignificance if mitigation measures are im lemented
exposure to seismic hazards, removal of native vegetation,
removal or 'destruction of rare/endangered plants, soil erosion,
rockfalls and landslides, exposure to flood hazards, reduction of
water quality in i,i,tte Chico Creek, noise intrusion on Janda
adjacent to Highway 32; overcrowding in Chico area schools,
disturbance of cultural resources, deterioration of unimproved
roads, storm drainage, induced alteration of planned land uses
and Highway 32 improvement costsa
Significant environmental impacts which cannot be avoided if
the project is implemented are confined to natural fire hazards
toresidents
and
s),property, and an
ough Partially mitigable, Impact
remaiincrease in demand nd for police
Project alternatives described in the report include No
�lrbject, Reduced Overall Oensity, Increased Overall Density and
Elimination of One Road Connection (combined with One of the
other alternatives).
Although this EtR is not intended as a Master UIR for all,
future development in the Study Area, the document may suffice
for soma projects, and require only supplemental information and
analysis for other developments.
FIGURE 1 REGIONAL LOCATION
J d PARA. DISE
CHICO
Lake
orovilie
OROVILL
Location
0
It.
INTRODUMTON
Urban and suburban growth often produce environmental,
changes, which to some extent, can be anticipated and atitilyzod
before they occur. The California Environmental. Qun;l,:Lty Act
(CEQA) of 1970 established the Environmental Impact Deport
(EIR) 'procedures for such analysis. Through the review process
mandated by this 1 zgislation, the environmental, consegmences of
land use decisions by governmental agencies can be studied 'before
the decision is made. The results of this analysis arerefined
through comments, responses and. public hearings and tire made
available to persons potentially affected by the decision as
well as to the decision -makers themse:.ves.
This document is structured as a "focused" EIR, written as a
part of the above-described processo it reviews the potential
traffic impacts on State Highway 32 northeast of Chico posed by
existing residential development and continued conversion of
undeveloped foothill land into rural homesites. Although impacts
to a broader "Study Area" encompassing over 1,500 acres are also
analyzed, no specific individual project has been singled out
within the Study Area; all potential projects within this area
are treated as a generic base.
Highway 32 east of Chico is a "d-eclared freeway" with con-
trolled access from adjacent properties. As early as 1978
Caltrans expressed concern with Butte County's policy of allowing
continued development artproperties served by highway 32,
increasing the traffic ;load oxi access roads approved by Caltrans
for limited use as private drives, (changing them to de facto
public road connections):
More recently, Mr. T rombatore again emphasizel� that the
County must treat these roads as Public Road Approaches to the
highway, and must prepare an EIR as part of the application
process for approval. (Refer to Appendix "E" for the original
map of the Study Area and for correspondence from Caltrans and
other parties addressing this matter.)
The current project which proposes to approve from two to
three road connections wiitli highway 32 is analyzed in this report.
Appropriate mitigation measures, as well as alternatives to the
pxopooed road connections are submitted as feasible courses of
action to pursue in order to reduce or ali.minate adverse impacts
and obtain necessary state approval for public road approaches to
Highway 32.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and
Jutte County Planting 'Department have expressed concerns about
private road connections to Highway 32 in this vicinity, related
to the following issues:
Disturbance of archaeological and historical sites
Destruction of rare plants
An increase in traffic hazards on Highway 32
Growth inducement
Soil erosion
impairment of scenic viewsheds
Short-term benefits vs. adverse effects on publicly
.adopted long-term environmental goals
Air quality
Cumulative impacts
See Appendix "All for the Initial Study prepared by the County
planning Department for this EIR.-
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTIOe
The project consists of three proposed public road
connections to State Highway 32 that would provide access to
els in a sparsely populated Area
several residential parc
northeast of Chico- (See ?igure 2). The toads would join I Highway
31 on the easterly side Of the highway only. The three roads are
now classified by the county as private unimproved roads.
k1tatina Drive And Ten t1ile, Rouse Road provide access to interior
residential development within the study area, while the
intervenil-1,z,g access (La Gastana Drive) primarily serves frontage
property Along the highway. The area directly impacted, by the
construction of three toad connections amounts to legs than one
acLe At the site Of each connection; depending upon the extent of
improvements required. Bach acce88 would be designed and
cotlotructOld to meet the codes And road improvement standards
administered by the California Department of Transportation (see
Appendix
IV. STATE11ENT OF p110JECT OBJECTIVES
Butte County proposes to apply for three Publit road
Approaches that Would connect Al tAtinA Drivej 1,a rastana Drive
and Ten Mile House Road to' 'State Highway 12. These road
connections would provide, access to existing and future
residential development in a foothill area east Of Highway 320
'In order to accomplish these objectives, property owners Will
'*Refer to Chapter VII) "HighwAy corridor - Traffic RatgtAfPs for
a full description of Highway 32 in the ViCifiitY Of the project
0
0
1
/, , i 1 �tt ; i., r ', ,t�'►y jq. r ,.� '�'�. S r ,r j i. , 1
�ry % � { i >•�' �• ��.��r ., t ! -tit ,d 't+ °+ . , f' j i � J, *'
+,+• , 1 ; t a r• y.'„r. (' f F' - ,S.' _ F '.,: � , 2 11 .f ..� 1. . 1
+ ,t r %."r• r, `tip., \•�
' •'�. � �. r' f tir j+s w t• F +�� s+�• ,� 'I�t`i;(1• ' � 1 tt f `�. 1 { t;I'1/ j r fi . � a tlL ..il i f. } ,i'?�\1 '•{
.+''r."`.�..,�'SI r , I I: , �� ;•� '� r.•'• % '. +, . y `.1 \(� (. �1 .`t4 t� l �' '11 , ,.' tf ` \.. ' , �,! ',,_t,'� °( t ..i. „`',�'�,. ,� �p Q
13 i '1..'x• ^ l r I�,t . 1 �h.,' ��:' l," ,. %1 tt •�"1A 4 I tr +Y�a /,� r�''�Y1 �1.,'� ` �.,, !. "�„ 4 rl 1i i"°•�
•.S'r r"r. wM. i 4.1 a' ;� a t 4.r.. _ _ ,1 ..111.. .� .,M i. ,`�� i.f' :rl. r .,. ..,. ��4 • / n q , r f'r ,.
}:+ �.i �,.' .'t �1+, /i+r ,Y. i��s' 1 ,SI'.•A.. ++ j"r. ''...4' -'},(J •1 •1 .arc„ ,..,:G". " ,J. _y,.. q.f,! )rr
�r _ ,.�. `•l ;� ` ,,�, 1 t..s.V •t f ,F. `, `:. {{ st -/ ,,r 0 N r�+•. 1,{ rJr �ll w =�„urni,'+r
d'�\" , 1' ll �! I r�'•l � �.--� 1111',�i. ! 1'1 ,., t �'? � ,,�1 C N�. ,(I' 11 1,� t,.... �"``.. ..��%� �-«.x �- �, 1 ,,..
>%� V �%•,rti, "'1t � �'lli ....1. /X� 9 II:..'�1\. yi rl'�\.:•\`�.�'- ''4�w '��• tifp ti,�*"'�-,.t+' 1, I1 f1
, r� ` � 1 !%•'I% � `}� ;M /� /J i,.. ( � �tr ��`�\f(\",��� •'`• 'r, /' ,./ y i.. 51� r •«��\\\•(11� �• r� i `�tl`� ..�` ��,�`..`r --,� i. V•, '�' �'1 .:t i�
a J /, .,.� 1 5, ( \� w1�' •�'. .'1 It: , ' l,`• ti \ r; 1 F �' �1� \ \, `l , l �t•�, I,. .l I'
, �",\.�. ry`• J1. lJtf rOF
am
' ! I H,! r,/ / I ,. �ttt 1,\ ({{ ',Y�'" ''ii/ rt�,�i 1 j l •,•c•, t t 7 ., �` 'i ? 1� 1 � r C/��_":/ �.,... •\ ��a ,l ;.
SaN f ir''/ / / ` � 11i•1 /rtr/i'r /�f• ice. 1 ��� ,p' .����//1� •/ti !�/p �.S sr�.� 1�` � .r'",�(! ( �?"rM?Ir�r
'•v I, •fir t � /. \� i + rl r' /!:, ,.'� .?�1��� 1R `.ycsw 1. 11(I f:
1.1�,• ,. ��1� �(1) �.«<•' \ :�. �l,t• `1 7 ]�,!/•
, r s�
�� i •;� b _ _�:_._ '•;^'T• :i '.�" l.r, I + �I �' J 'st,9 1 1 f'.: ���•i �)r`�9: i 1 f 1 r't �,\� w 2' p i"f." �`..' F '°' n
.F ��ar �I r. ��• H./✓•.+ ,� � rr 1`� �� \� , -��+• �� 'II� �+ q's ".•'.,/ / ,t t � .i 1+ ' ( V, r �� � � � 1X' t7
� � tf i rf.? ,a ,!� �a;la•, ' ,l/ t ii ""fr ,: ° !/+1 1�tj J,",;' et tjt I "� r1 tt1, t ,,,r, 1 y • � � �,, " , r �;Q� d
• �M 1 f•,` � y /. �!r/ �r".•✓rt {' r'• //� t' J��''.,� ��� .� �+�,I •1' I it 1l �F , ... L 'r /// (/ ��'/' .I `I.� q
.r �. qY 1 r' 1 , :• ,h ,r. � :�',: � I• i fx /,��!`'!' .+: i r r.i,' "}1lr � t it I � �`,I(t 1! +r'f •Il � I t j�I I i l t \, �,.w y✓.'tlt�/ / e
r'xie/iy��/ ��r! '1,�� 1 ,/ � � �,,• vx4t
n: � : ,' l: l�� ? � i � � I" i •�+ � ! � ��/r � "f $ � •` ! ! �� , ,' tri' �,">r,lJ ' r,� ; �� �� ! �/ � ,r�� ,,i� ''� � ,,,:•� ,1 p •
41
If
� J I t � t f. ���1, , � y�'.°' d � � .�/t, t,l j l 1, ���� r�'� 11 j' t ( • � % r,,,,- pp '_.
b:1 �.`� if i � �� '1 is�G. 1� ilk. t a>.- ,! ,•.r l ,��. r 1'.i� I+i `�'..,'�i� � , '✓.,��.°� �lp+v!'
1" ,I+i ►,a 1 }� �.� �y ,1 ��� 1 Y� 1 `�, w?i/° ��r0� ✓� r✓ ,.�,R' j'l ll�t
` �*„'r 1•+ d +' sr`\ki/kll rtI�� ") _ � \a•r ,t +, �'•�"tI'!, ,�Iv
'tt}�1, I" . 1'ltr . F r't �r, \>�1 �( i ✓t . ', ,,✓tt. !!'w1
I,'i ii111t� At (I r, �r� rV," t� sj 'ii'B� .•'v / 1. �1/fl trf 2L
9
II
't°
aA .SA
•, q C r .. 11 t:. (I .,.r / p r'
.. ' � � ' .-�1-+.�.--. ,7•�-;. .r•si �, .. _ ._. ..�. �» '�i �.:� .'-•%'_-lam•" f 1 .. __1 - �r .�. ,.� a ..i—. ria. � �._ . N /`
I ''1 . / N r ' / I ; � f r r I "t 1 . , + 1� a �� f+•.• r' I � \ • i l r � ,.r' ; / q t'r •��•l.'
.. �°��ar 1 Si1���" "1 1+� �� ° r� f��`' � t)G:•1�111' �r ,'� � ti �� l• , b% � .,�
' , , ',,I a 1 1;N tt i �� . %! / ' . ;..�.�- 1_. �.� c�.�l ` ..• �.�, t 14t ,.
1668 �." y�,,,, -' ...,_�.. . .., i::, �... .y. -r -}-J7. —y, , r. r ,,_ . •" �"� . ��.�, + f�
..i— / 1 r 7." r l' ,(� ,) F+. 1 !., 1 '� y. '` �/ 1 1 r � Y , r T—•;
Jit rf/, _ f+1 Frl,'t �•'dj"/ l f r1�' `,t: r'r •j!. t p; _
STUDY AR
FA #2 r 7 /
�. i,r , 1 •h hS.t 4 ri�,✓, ,����� _�„!! l �'' fi °" 1 (1)If°�'t. h //�� / '•,� "•' r k f
/ Its ✓ f, . 1 I
lu
III FIGURE 2
�1
Project N,
�JI y �. 5�..e tV�lr rr it
( k
�+y.. r '\,.,! 1 ,.,» .-.e... �,�, ' • , ' , y'.. j. rN tI,
t•
_ -
/
�._F.:.%✓ nM1a}e. °>x '� al,'. il•7s91 #�, t �, , `1,• r r 11 ;r�,8;i I. ! ,�7' r 1.t �F,r 7 rNF 1,r'" 2
�ISSS ?t `., ,', r . II � � �1 r�"•- •. _ ,,
,
r '
a, � s r< Lo ,,� m .d, � , r • y ;, ,,r ;1 err
1�// ,� A..1 , V „ � ° , 't �l ' , .w.l c , '. 1 , a r I ,Itl' dq . r` ->`r, ,• . k,.• .. . , 1. 'QI
•. 1. Pt 1
3 ,y �04 d��q".. - .i. i ++r ✓//°dr i' yi ✓. ^•a It ��,' ��rs tp .1 ,r Nr r "� F',
,� x f? ti, � ♦ J; 1 f 1 �,� 1
i
t! }�, ` �}/ ' .,• t1 .`�\1 m� '\ '-0 , , il,, 1 6
,r•1i/7.1'+ 1 , ++ / r.• p',•�" t r,r�.f
• w
+ f
1 a �� 1 ,� y v (1 V's Y\.' rr Irl •/ r / !
P ,
. 0
xaJ�C
;ay #1 Ten ,
h,�...., M�Ie 'House ••
.✓ { t Q••j I 1' 1 �--!6v ;, N ,` , z La Ca`st na Drive `�e• n �;}_a
L y r+afr
711,
�` r'� `/J } I t+ f i��y/,,• �� ._ r I � i� �I+t i.. «�`� ;,�3 A1t.,dtiitia.. Drive � 1 V,
J. T
,
1
4a ,�' � 1' I' I /j ' +•� :. I . , )� • ' •• M 1., +f/
cede a linear strip of right-of-way to the County, approximately
one foot in width, parallel and adjacent to the state highway,
forming a nexus between. each private road and Highway 32. No
other roads currently exist in this area that would provide
reasonable access to the state highway from 'residential proper-
ties located within the larger project boundaries (see Figure
2)'.
V. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT'S TECHNICAL, ECONOMIC AND
ENVIRO ME1aTAL CHARACTERISTICS
The proposed project would require road widening --grading,
paving, construction of traffic barriers,sepa,ators and marking --
as well as drainage improvements to areas extending 500 Feet
north and south of each road connection, and from 100 to 200 feet
east of the centerline of the existing highway. 'Refer to Appen-
dix "E" for a description of standard design specifications
required by Caltrans for public road connections.
Pending final review by Caltrans, project traffic after full
buildout would not appear to warrant the construction of left
turn pockets, or extensive acceleration and deceleration lanes
for any of the three road connections. however, other -standard
highway improvements normally required for public road approaches
must be accomplished before project approval is grunted by
Caltrans. Costs for these improvement, may range as Nigh as
y40,000 to $60;000, depending upon the type of improvements
required. Typical site considerations would include slope
gradient, subsurface structural characteristics, embankment
construction, grading, amount of fill required and the magnitude
of ,drainage improvements required. (Refer to Appendix E
for a schematic representation of typical road approach
improvements required by Caltrans.)
birect genetal impacts to the environment that will occur as
a result of project implementation include vegetation removal,
modification of topography, alteration of drainage patterns, an
increase in storm runoff and a potential increase in traffic
generation
VI. ENVIROMIEN'TAL SETTING
A. WCAT'TON
The general project site, identified in Figure 2 as Study
Area #2, is located approximately 10 miles northeast of State
Highway 95 and east of State Highway 32 in the Forest Ranch area.
The proposed public road approaches, Tett Mile House Road, Ls.
Castana Drive and Al.tatina Drive, connect to Highway 32 an esti-
mated 9.0, 9.5 and 10.0 miles northeast of highway 99,
respectively. The project boundaries occupy portions of Sections
25, 30, 31, 35 and 36, Tovinshi.p 23 Notth, Range 2 East on a
5
0
n
U.S.G.S. topographic map, and encompasses approximately 1,543'
acres,
B. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
The topography in the project study area is charadterized.
by gentle to steE-�p rolling terrain. Slopes range from less than
10% on ridge tops to 603 or more toward Little Chico Creek.
Elevations range from 1,000 feet to 1,800 feet. A.S.L.
Volcanic mudflows and associated volcanic sands and
conglomerates, identified as the Tuscan Formation, and younger
basaltic volcanic rock underlay most of the project site. The
sedimentary Chico Formation and ancient crystalline racks of the
Sierra Nevada underlay the Tuscan Formation.
The Tuscan Formation averages 700 feet in thickness over the
site. The less permeable mudflows are layered alternately with
the more permeable sandstones and conglomerates, with the mud
flows predominating in the upper part of the formation. Since
water travels in the more permeable layers, trees and shrubs
occur in bands along the ,canyon walls corresponding to the sand
and conglomerate Layers of the Tuscan Formation.
The surface is charactorized as rough, broken and Ston -
land. Soils belong to the Toomes6-Pentz association (Soil
Conservation Service Class VII'). Surface Soil averages 1 to 2
feet in depth, and is composed of loam and clay loads. Subsoil
averages from l to 5 feet in depth, and consists of clay, clay
loam interspersed with large numbers of rock fragment;.
The Butte County Safety Element rates the Toomes-Pentz soils
as having "low" expansive potential, "moderate" to "high" erosion
hazard and a moderate landslide risk in the Little Chico Creek
canyon area where slopes exceed 40%. Drainage for these soils is
classified. as low to moderate.
The California Division. of Mines and Geology places all of
'Butte County in a "lows' earthquake severity zone. Several fault
traces, all of unknown activity are located within 1.0 miles of
the project site. Earthquake intensities would likely range from
'VI to Vlll on the Modified Mercalli Scale. Intensity VIII may
cause moderate damage to poorly built structures; structures
built to standard seismic safety codes would suffer little or no
damage from lateral forces.
C. HYDROLOGY
The only surface 'Water on the site is formed by Littlkt Chico
Creek, a permanent stream which flows southerly through the
eastern portion of the project site, approximately one mile east
of highway 32 (see Figure 2). Natural drainage channels which
carry winter and spring storm runoff are found throughout the
6
project area.
The volcanic layers ofbleea1nd impermeable materials n Formation have a with
water content, since perm ble
ea ore size, re inter
varying clay content, grain size and P arefrom 80 to 800
layered. Groundwater is found at depths ranging
ell-head.
he
feet below the w, Tf excellent.This fotmationf the wateronot
ly th
Tuscan Formation is general
and east of Chico serves as a groundwater recharge for' well, in
the Chico area.
D. CLIMA'f E AI�1 ACR qU?x
A modified Mediterranean type of cliui.a.te characterizes
weather patterns in the project area, resulting in hot dry
summers and cool wet winters. Temperatures ranging from average
lows of 30-35 degreee F to summer highs ;averaging 90+ degrees F
are common in the lower foothills.
Precipitation averages 40-50
inches annually, though the recent 1982-83 v;inter has produced in
excess of 70 inches.
Variations in the site's canyon and ridge top terrain would
be expected to modify local wind speeds And Rid a tedops ious,
precipitation And temperature levels, g
the valley an
experience diff'erenct microcl e co
canyon bottoms due to differing denrekjr7 ns cffrom exposure Co windy
and related factors.
solar heating, moisture retention,
The existing air quality at ��d opThedroad site islnnections
ocatedin
and project study area is gen Y g
the Sacramento Valley Aix "basin which tt s butt designated as a
non-attainment area by the '8PA and Califotnia Air Resources
Boards occasionally excooding maximum levels for ozone and carbon
monoxide (CO).
lies above th.- elevation (600 to 1,000
The site generally
feet) where combustiottgenerated pollutants are seasonally
is
trapped byng
the valley's temperature inversion 'Thisconfiniionall
Commonly' present from September through ,lanurary,
valley-generated emissions to the valley floor. Summer months
periodically bring greater air stability and similar pollution
contine,dent :in the valleY«
The neatest air quality monitoring station is located in
Chico. Records from the station show a steady decrease in levels
of CO, an overall decrease 4seh in steady levels o£tions of ozone
hydroma r a se
and particulates and a n of CO,
Motor vehicles are the major` source of emission
gri
hydrocarbons and pretu gnif cant sourcce while
thesea pol.lut�ants,
burning is another SigPgvticulAtOd
Agricultural tilling is Lbe main source of suspended.No air quality
that exceed standard, ring summer months.
problems in the valley ur foothil+ s
related speaifica117 to
traffic on highway 32, have been reported..:. Air quality ��t the
site is expected to be markedly better than, that recorded at the
Chico monitoring station due to better air circulation and a
larger volume of air available for, mixing, Th -48 has been
demonstrated by the relatively lower recordings from the Paradise
ozone monitoring station At about 1,600 feet elevation.:
E. HABITAT AND WILDLIFE
The habitat throughout the project area is basically chaparral,
interspersed with some elements of foothill woodland and
occasional bands of riparian habitat located along the banks of
ephemeral streams and Little Chico Creek.
Predominant plant species representing the chaparral habitat
include: live oak, digger pine, manzanita coffee berry,
California Bay, pitcher- sage) b?ckbrush, poison oak:, silk --tassel
bush, climbing vines of bedstraw and chaparral honeysuckle.
Open patches of grass and forb vegetation occasionally occur
in areas where soils are very shallow; high moisture content in
the soil may create a vernal habitat. Common species in this
habitat are sandwort) Booker's plantain, popcorn flower) monkey
flower, goldfields, heronbill and several grass species of fescue
and brome.
Disturbed soils near the site r(,dd connections support a
"weedy" type of vegetation that include Spanish broom, yerba
Banta) vetch, curly dock) foxtail barley and other weedy grasses
and seedlings belonging to the chaparral habitat.
Two rare and endangered species may occur in this areas the
Red Bluff Ruc,:+ (Juncus leiospermus) and Butte County Checker
Mallow (Sidalcea robusta). Other species considered rare but not
endangered found in this habitat And locatioii include Astragalus,
pauperculus) Calycadenia ppositi:folia) Mimulus glaucescens
Polygonum bidwe]liae;and P1ag iobotheys scri_ )ptus:
Habitat oti the project site provide food and cover for a
number of animal species, including resident and migratory deer,
skunk} rabbit) fox, bat) opossum, squirrel, mice and other
rodents, A portion of the site is within the East Tehama Deer
Herd winter range according to wildlife maps used by the Butte
County Planning Department4 many species of birds inhabit the
site) including quail) red tail hawks) meadowl,arka, thrushes;
sparrowy jays, woodpeckers and tnoutning doves. No )`are or
andangered animal. species Are known to inhabit or depend on the
project site.
..,
F. LAND UM GENERAL PLAN., AND ZONING
' The project site, including the entire study area, encompas-
sea approximately 1)543 acres of mostly open land: Land use in
VMS
lA
4` l'`�J I �\
r, •
r
7U.'74 4C
L
co
, b �5:�` s �.:r• „��"e'� Ger
�vr Itis.
FIGUREA UND U5E CAT8GORZCS Arlt ZONES , :; j ,.""`: MFwrtiy•'•'-i:
A "trIT4
• ♦v _
'
35l
,t+J! Zzal
`( a
4 D .41
♦
the immediate vicinity of the
of 1/4 mile from each connection) primarily rri connections (radius
acreage, with fewer than 10 residences consists of open
throughout this area along the Highway 32 crsely to 7ted
corridor. 8 residences occupy the remaining to parcels in
Large reception towers owned by StaTelevision Cable, Inc.s are
the study area.
located approximately 1,000 feet east of the main highway in the
far northwest portion of the site.
An estimated 1,145 acres of the
Open project site are designated;
Grazing and 0 en band {GOL) in the County General Land Use plan,
requiring a minimum of 40 acres per parcel. Approximately 265
acres are zoned A-2, with the remaining 88(l acres zoned TM -40,
398 acres of the project study area are designated Residential (A -R), which requires a minimum Of o eeiacreu per
Agricultural -
parcels all of this acreage is currently zoned A�-2. P
Approximately 45 parcels are now present on the
proj
site; 15 parcels designated. GOLL range from 40 to 160 acresect
size, with the predominant size ranging from 80 to 120 acres. An
estimated 30 parcels are classified A -R, and rangy
to 42 acres; the predominant parcel size ran be in size from, 4
acres. (See figure 3). ges from 10 to 30
Two known parcel maps of land classified A-
33 + acres in size, are currently being processed�b42t acres and
these projects would result in a net gain of f }' he
county;
our parcels.
Although several hundred acres of land designated GOL have
been placed in agricultural preserves under
Williamson
contracts, owners of more than 75% of this sand have submitted
non -renewal contracts.
Surrounding lands primarily exist as open ru
With limited access, although several, developments ehave rbeen
.
proposed for the general, foothill area north and east of Chico;
for further discussion of this topic refer to the
Cumulative Impacts„ section on
G • TRApFIC AND- CIRCULATION
corridorat C.h Highway
32 is the access between
vehicular transportation
foothill communities. tween Chios and northeastern
The two-lane highway is maintained in
excellent condition, ng vehicles to trawl at highway
speed (45- m.p.h.) forpermittimost o.f the
Forest Ranch. distance between Chico and
The Rigt.ay has a design. capacity of about 1.5,,000 yehicie
!� trips per day, 1581 traffic volumes recorded by C LTRAVe show
2 y _ p p
ADT for the peak month and 360 tripe
posed
connections, 3,050
,200 ADT in the vicnit of the ro osed rand
during the peak hour. Heavy
trucks account for 6%,47% (Caltrans ].980 average) of the ADT- The
grade of the highway in the project area Averages 22447.'
.
Navin 9
Table 1,
We 32, But Co
1DS1 TR 9FFIGYDLumm
Rte 33, Ker Co
Milt t4ak
Post Description How
ADT
Pk Mo. Annual
Mile.
Post (kscriptlop
Peak
Hour
ADT
Pk Ma Annual.
10.74 Chico, End {Natbowssi
'Couplet ApprorLnatcly Half
M8e East of P¢ Street ,..W, ..„..N
6.ob Creek Road «-N•»•N•--..•:•--•-•W.�.,••.«•••••..••••
, .N » » , _ WN „ »
10.74 C 0 U P L E T .. End .... BoLan Two Way Travel
IPSO 19,700
901 Oak Santa
VieW n aRoad
.Santa Ana flood:NN.1NW.rN»«..:.+..:-.._...«_.:,.•..:-.W.•».....:»
19,000
10:74 Chico Approximately Half
Mita F of Pit Street
N
19200
18;600
330
4,150 3,000
10,65 Woodland Road
11,01 (loco, Poreit Avenuo » „ ._ ,
1,600
17,600
16,600
-„„
4811
„
1;150 3,W)
I1.M Ojai,
West jct RIC, I50' ♦,»,,,..NNW .»•»
1,520
.«
16,300
.»» N»• «
16�D0
. d -»»
11.47 Chico, El Monte Avenue -W
(Brtak in Roolb)
360
%,850 f,o50
11.21 0p4 East jeL Rte,150, Route
(.ontinoes
Via Alatirop i 111gttwey
•»»
N - ».:..»N
.
1511 11011 Spring; HuraWt Road WN»»» N» _»NN .. NW.W,
1000
IIAM
11AW
360
A21fi Ranch 360
050 4
011
A Robiar Roo WNW„»,N.N...»N-,.-.......�,......_._....__.•.-»♦.
850
8,900
8,500.
.Forest
litlbott E Lee Drive » .W W« .
WN «W _..♦-N»N
610
61100
SAM
824.12 Milepost Equation
WO
5,400
4,800
�4A 14 260
tioD 1*
11;80 Filr&w Avenue »»_ »» •.-».
. __
N».. w.
_. «.
8)695 Irmo».N..�..N.....W.,W...:.,W..._,»..».».«..-......»W.N..W..•.».W...:.
500
5,000
4,400
1533 Loa Padres
3' 000
` 110
1,400 0_.J
National Forest Bound�y�, W..�.,...W......._.»WW:..._..._.•_.,
37:75 $uttaTtlsasn>! County Line >u..,,..:N� -
N♦W.N«N.•..»NW::»
540
31200
0,000
DISTRICT 2
111.44 WAX Road North
Ito
4,000 4,loo
0.00 buttrTthama County Line W
N...,-,,.. -
100
1,400
1,1111,0
1289 User 14b
Creek Bridge»...«.�....N.:,.:�„»,.N:._,„N,_,,,
1,200 820
17,63 WheelerSprings tin „ •»
P W ...».. «-
100
800
700
160
•..,w..,:.:.•:
1110D 750
100
800 .
700
RU -85 JCL Rte♦ 56;
j Mo m Spring; South 130
r8 P ` g;
1,100 730
!021 Sespe forgo- , W. _ N
)110
_
620
600
»- - »W»N NN.♦W
. N W ,N N»:»s
100
620
600
ROUTE 33, 1`1006 101 in Venture to Routo 6 Near Tracy
4830 Oxon Road (to Lockwood) H• 100
620
-
soD
DISTRICT 1
90
6'20
600
Venturi County
5fS1 Vmtssrs y 6arlsuq
Cosmty LLI sse W.»N..«.:-•-;.-..N.-•W:»...».....,W�...NN...•W
,,N,W.:,
0(10 Veiihua t lite. 101. Vtnwra
LeFrxway,
DISTRICT 5
Begin Pr"y
0,00 Ve iturt lints ll46M
11,330
34.700 43M
County Liao
ISI SIAneY Avenue Interchan a
818 Sams Bubua'County
-W»•,»..N.N-rN.»u.
DODO San Gus Obupo County
90
fuD
600
2,050
21,800 40,800
180 jet, Rte. 166 West
Liz Shell Ruud lnterclsan e
" (►1ilepost Fgtutton)
1,900
440
40,400 19,466
4M San Luis 064po Kem County,
20
k000
IA%
Road tete
' Canada Largsti Interchange
' •�•
Ube
N+rM:..r»._ww,'N:NWW»w♦.♦.:
,_...,:�:,....,W:N...:..W.:..:...-W
150
40Ji00 19,4011
oISTR1GT 0
85,61 Vuta Road lnletcluogo N+.»♦NWNr.+raiL.Mli
1100 45sn Luis ONVO-Kern County
♦•»♦IWIawiY.
1,9Db 14
Y�aIE. «w•w.WL:w,urr..++.t.. ..:
- :sWuu.wr»»:,..:,.».w
73.td Pzd rrccway, Continue on Ventura ,wMue
470
40
1,$56
1'11.06 f illepoat Egdidon
11.53 "'*, P" Stroea
4Q0
O,ItlO
x,1110
1.60
k1. Rte. 166 Fast
1,650
800 Creek Road
40,400 19,000
500
0,800
x,600
W W.-.»». » W _
.. N»» ..«. N
1191 County haul P261 M:NWhw r
W
96
v
•
The three private road encroachments onto the hiShway in the
project area are currently from 15 to 25 feet wicks, Altatina
Drive and Ten Mile House toad provide access to several: hundred
acres of land east of Highway 32, while La Castana Drive
primarily 'serves frontage property along the highway. (See
Figure 2 for circulation pattern.)
The section of highway between Chico and Forest Ranch is a
declared "freeway" with controlled access. Planners in the
Caltrans District 3 office have expressed concern about the
potential proliferation of new public access connections to the
highway that would impair traffic safety, and/or make costs for
channeliztation at access points prohibitive. While traffic
generation from existing residences in the project study area
utilizes ve;:y little of the highway's capacity (15 residences
generate an estimated 105 trips per day), future development in
the project area combined with traffic from other developments
served by "Highway 32 may pose a less trivial impact.
H. NOIBVE
The primary source of noise in the area is generated by
traffic along Highway 32. The 1981 volume of ADT passing the
project site was 2,200 vehicles. ADT for the peak month was
3,050. Heavy* trucks account for an estimated 6%-7y of the total
traffic volume. The road gradient in the vicinity of the project
site ranges from three to five percent, requiring heavy trucks
traveling downhill to decelerate, thereby increasing :noise levels.
The Butte County Noise Element identifies Highway 32 as a
"highspeed" roadway. The average day/night noise levels (Ldn
are rated as follows;
70 dB within 1.00 feet of the roadway;
65 dB between 1.00 and 200 feet of the roadway;
60 dg or Less beyond 200 feet of the roadway.
Adopted policy within the Noise Hlement stated that ambient
background noise levels should not exceed 60 dB in order to
prevent interference with normal indoor activities.
Three houses currently exist within 100 to 200 feet of the
edge of the highway.
I. PUBLIC 89RVICES
Schoola
The site is within the Chico Unified School District~ Chil-
dren, in the project area' would attendParkview Blemelitary School;
10
Chico Junior High School and Chico Senior High School. The bus
routes of the junior and senior high schools pass the site along
Highway 32 and would serve the project vicinity.
Police ]Protection
Law enforcement and police protection is Provided to the
project area by the Butte County Sheriff's Department, At
present, there is no regular patrol assigned to t;hearea; the
Sheriff's patrol cars on the East Beat in Chico res00nd to site
vicinity calls from their location at the t m(% of the call.
Emergency response time to the project sitr-, would] av-erage 10-20
minutes depending on the location of the Patrol vehicle.
Fire Protection
The site and immediate vicinity is classified by the Butte.
County Safety 'Element as a High natural, fire hazard area•, the
site is surrounded by areas of High to Extreme natural fire
hazards. The Butte County Fire Department, staffed by the
California Department of: Forestry (CDP) personnel., serves the
project area from Chico -based fire stations. All -season
volunteer service is also vailable from Forest Ranch station No.
24 and Butte County Volu,iteer Fire Company No, 24 The CDS'
station in Forest Ranch also provides additional fare protection
in the summer months,
Response: time for the first engine from the forest Ranch
stations would range from 10-15 minutes. Response time for back-
up engines from Chico would also range from 10 to 15 minutes.
J. UTILITIES
Gas and. Electricity. No natural gas lines serve the project
area at present. Pacific G,.s and electric Company (PG&E) does,
however, maintain power lines up Highway 32, whish currently
serve existing parcels in the project area.
Telephone. Pacific Telephone Company provides telephone.
service along Highway 52 and to residences within the project's
boundaries.
Water Supply. hater is typically provided by on-site wells
for each parcel in the project area. Water availability is
extremely variable at this location; depths for adequate flows
Vary from 80 to 800 feet below the sri Face. There are no plans
for a community -water system in the area.
Sewage Disposal. Sewage disposal is accomplished in the
project area by individual septic tanks and leaehfields. Soil
conditions vary greatel.y within the project area; development of
new parcels must meet standards set by Butte County Environmental
Health Department.
ll
0
K. CU� T� L MSOURC
the Signifidant archaeological and historical
Project area that l sates May
connections, would be served Y exist` 3n
sites of However, no recorded historical the Public road
any significance have been or archaeological
the proposed road Gonne recorded at
have existed at o connections. (Althoughthe locations of
connections on
time in the wagon wheel. ruts may
:iighwa 32 vicinity of the Present
or covered these t act and
connecting road
Private road8 hnve removed.
Future Projects
require archaeplp within the project stud
envixonmental gical suave Y area will generally
along review by the Count as Part of the initial.
Little Chico Creek should Y Planning.De
sensitive than be considered part,ment, Areas
Properties at higher ele,►a ions. Potentially more
Ila
V7I. ENV'IRONHENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS — HIGI WAY 32 CORRIDOR
Potential envir.anmental impacts from project d,%,velopment are
separated into two general categories: Impacts that directly
affect the Highway 32 corridor ("Highway Corridor") and "Study
Area" impacts that affect the general project site, or off-site
areas.
As previously mentioned', the County would be expected to
perform initial environmental studies on future land divisions
and subdivisions; Mitigated Negative Lcalaratiorin and EIRs are
generally required. ley the County for these projects requiring
discretionary govern.nent action that may result in siginificant
adverse impacts to the environment.
A. GEOLOGY AND SOIL IMPACTS
Geologic ;Hazard
The following potential geologic hazards, have been
classified as none-existant, or if present, insignificant :in
threat, by the Butte County Safety Element and related. EIRs
(Fourteen Mile House Rezone and Bidwell heights Land Project)
completed in the area: subsidence, vo'lnanism and expansive soil.
Landslides and Rockfalls
Highway Corri.dort Since natural or cut banks ate not
present at the proposed road connections to Highway 32,
landslides and rockfalls are not considered a hazard.
Study Area: Poorly designed and constr"ieted privato 'roads
in the project as.ea pose landslide and rockfall hazards to
property, persons and vehicles. Required compliance with County
standards for private toad construction as a condition of
subdivision or parcel map approval would adequately mitigote this
potential hazard.
Xitiga# on None proposed.
Erosion
The erosion hazard of Toomes-Peutz soil is rated "High" by
the Butte County Safety Hlement, based upon soil st'ructt 're and
moderate to steep slopes in the project Ards. Although a broad
ran
ge of precipitation has been recorded for the area durtng the
past 10 years, rainfall would normality ,average 40 i!ohes
annually:
Highway Corridor: Potential #,mpacts fLom erobion at the
I
0
a
cites proposed for public road connections include
destabilization of roadbeds and shoulders, oiltation .of drainage
channels and removal of topsoil oadjoining
Erosion hazards to Highway 32 and associated corridor
improvements would be satisfactorily mitigated by design stand-
ards required by Caltrans for all modifications to state roads,
highways and right-of-way laad. Similarly, erosion impacts to
private property immediately adjacent to the state right-of-way
would be mitigated by Caltrans design standards.
Stud Area: Most erosion would occur during construction--
grading for roads, especially side -hill cuts, would contribute to
both Wind and water erosion. L"rosion :May also occur in ropect
areas cleared of vegetation and run fi may replanted erode after the banks of
completion. increased s
existing or Llw drainage channels, unless design standards
Adequately
address site-specific conditions. Compliance with.
County standards for construction of private
riveroaosenew
parcels, and conformance to the County grading rk
partially mitigate this hazard.
Mitigations
1, perform all vegetation removal., excavation and grading
activities during the dry months of the year;
2. Revegetate exposed slopes prior to onsat of the rainy
Beacon;
3. Establish perimeter site berms for each building site
during construc,tioo to inhibit erosion and to reduce the
potential for silts to be carried into stream channels,
4 A1:. parcel or subdivision maps shall incorporate
specified drainage improvements recommended sby th d tstte County
Department of Public Corks before app
roval I
Earthquake Activity and Yaui.t Ditpiacetent
A primary
effect of an earthquake ..s ground shaking --the
of le can rdsult
horizontal and verb cal. vibration
.oratground
ude liquefactiose anks,etc- Secondary
in damage to buildings, pig ► �' slumping and rocicfall
effects inca, lurching,
The severity of the g
round shaking depends mainly upon the
_
distance to the eps,eente:. of the earthquake, the stre;i th of the.
earthquake, and nature of soil and rock at the affected site:
The California Division of Mineo and Geology places all. of
Butte County
in a "Low's earChquakE severalty zone. The Mite lids
within the northern extension of the root 'hills
nEa� �c�agni rude
which 4's ge+^erel:ly considered capable of p g
eaY+;;ga, �.ke on the lachter Scale• it is reasonable tcs expec,
66
an eauthquake regigtering b:5y with the epicenter loc;it'ed 20
13
mikes from the site, to impact the project area.
Maximum probable intensities from earthquakes range ,from VI
to VIII on the Modified Mercall.i Scale, which indicates impacts
to structures associated with earthquakes having an intensity VI
or greater. An intensity 'VIII would result in moderate damage to
unreinforced masonry structures and slight damage to reinforced
weY -built structures.
No evidence of recent fault displacement his been recorded
in this vicinity of the county. However, lineaments visible on
air photos of land proposed for development as Bidwell Heights,
three miles southeast of the project site, are probable faults.
The date of their last activity is not known.
Highway Corridor: Compliance with design standards required
by Caltrans for -construction of all public road approaches to
state highways would adequately mitigate seismic hazards.
Study,Area: Compliance with seismic safety standards in
local and state building codes would adequately mitigate hazards
to structures built within the site area.
Mitigation: None proposed.
11. MROLOGY IMPACTS
Surface Drainage — Flooding
Highway Corridor: An increase in storm runoff, is expected
upon completion of roadway improvements. Compliance with design
standards required by Caltrans for installation of drainage
facilites, grading, energy dissipaters and tevegetation of
6lopea4 will minimize the rata' of runoff and potential for
flooding. Due to the small percentage of increase in impervious
surface area in comparison to the existing amount of highway area
within the project area, the increase, in storm runoff is expected
to be insignificant:
5t� Area: Little Chico Creek is the: only permanent stream
in the project vicinity subject to potential flash flooding from
surface storm runoff. Several, drainage channels and occasionally
steep sloping land would contribute runoff to the stream.
Development of more than 90 new homesites and the eventual
construction of several miles of unimproved road to serve those
sites will increase storm 'tunoff within the proAect site and
adjacent properties. The amount of runoff would be accombdated
`by Little Chico Creek, tributary drainage channels and drainage
improvements constructed to the standards of the County Public
1
11
0
._ s Department.
M:ittgation; All parcel maps and subdivision maps shall
incorporate specified drainage improvements recommended by the
Butte County Public Works Department before approval is granted.
Water quality
Highway Corridor: There are no surface water bodies in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed road connections that would
receive storm runoff from road improvements at the access
locations.
Study Area: Site development in proximity to Little Chico
Creek or natural drainage channels discharging into the Creek may
contribute to unacceptable levels of sedimentation and toxicity
in the. Creek from storm runoff.
Mitigation:
I. Consult the California Department of Fish and Game
before initiating site improvements that would contribute
unfiltered storm runoff directly into Little Chico Creek;
2. implement measures recommended by the state.
Department of Fish and Game designed to protect Little Chico
Creek before undertaking any site improvements,,
3. All parcel and subdivision maps shall incorporate
specified drainage improvements recommended by the Butte County
D'opartment of Bubli.o Works before approval is granted. 'Typical
d taitiage improvements include installation of culverts, pipes and
anergy di.ssipators, bank stabilization, excavated and cleared
drainage ehannels, contoured road shoulders, and to a lesser
extent, bridge construction.
Com. k1p, _qUALTTY IMPACTS
The ,)rlmary source of emissions from project development.
would be vehicular traffic generated by residential buildout.
Stationary emissions would be negligible. Table 2 displays the
composite emission factors for a mix of vehicle classes—
estimated for 1982 and 1995 in grams per mllor-for carbon
monoxide (Co); nitrogen oxides 00x) Aird total hydrocarbons
(T11C)v, Assumptions incorporated into the ;following analysis
include:
Total buildout- 107 dwelling unit's
Average: trip length (ATL) pet »!b`= 13 miles
Average number of trips Per day (ADT)= 10
Average trip speed (ATS)= 46 m,.p.h, (Based on 15% uE
ATL in
project area at 20 m.p.h.- 15% of A'L in urban area lit 30 mph.;
and 70% of ATL on highway at 55 m.p.h.)
Vehicle mix; light duty passenger= 71.793;
light duty truck- 16.521
medium duty truck- 1.72%
heavy duty gasoline truck= 3..31%
heavy duty diesel truck= 5.73%
motorcycles- 0.93%
Ambient temperature- 75 degrees l
Operational mix, cold start= 21%
hot starts- 27%
hot stable= 52%
(Note: 110 estimated parameter is included fora variable
efficienc; mix for all vehicles. New vehicle efficiency is
assumed. figures for vehicle mix, ambient air temperature and
operational mix are based on data in 82PPlement 2 To Procedure
and Basis for "stimatinj art -Road Motor VetjicleTEmisa ons June
,1981, p. E-2?0, published by Che 8tate Air Resources Boa"—rd-7."
Based on the above figures] the total, amount of miles
traveled (VMT) per b/tJ per day equals .130i, The grand total of
miles traveled (ADVMT) for the entire project at full buildout
(107 D/Us) in 1995 equals 13,910. In 1982 the ADVMT for 15 D/Us
is calculated to equal. 1,950.
CO
17.15
9.06
STABLE 2
COMPOSITE 2MISSTON fACTOF;S
(Grams Per Mile)
:1982'
NO
THC
3.83 1.44
1995
2.08
Tables 3 and 4 depict the amount of emissions generated
countytaide and by project ttaffir, in tons per days, for 1982 and
1995. tm'ssions from project traffic �s shown as a parcent of
they total county emissions. in 1:982 when project ADVmT equalo
California A, t ResourtL±8 I✓ Board, Su tem nt x To Procedure
end Basis for tihiatin On=. d Motor Vehicle Etnl esions Jane
L9 81f p, E..220 ---
'16
0
n
11
1,950, and in 1995 when that ADVMT has increased to 13,910, the
percent of total countywide emissions attributed to project
traffic amounts to Less than 1/2 of 1,0 percent.
For both the Hi hwa Corridor and Study Area, the low amount
local
of ADT generated by the project, in combination with
to limit
mitigating geo-climatic c features, would continue
local air quality to insignificant levels.
potential impacts on
I'actozs includin,, the location of the project site in the upper
foothills) prevailing winds and presence of steep canyons
area (promoting large volumes of air mixing
below the project
the study area), as well as sparse residential development,
over
reduce potential adverse impacts to insignificant levels.
4Nrerall, the project contribution to all mobile emissions in
BuVte County totals less than 1/2 of 144 percent.
(Not,e although winter conditions may exacerbate adverse
climatic factors affecting vehicle emissions (i.e., ambient it
approaching nearly 60%,
temperature 450 to 55'', and cold starts
the operational mix), prevailing winds) above-described
of
topographical features and low &DT minimize the effects of cold
weather conditions on vehicle emissions in this area of the
foothills.)
Mi.tia2,on: None proposed,
11
TABLE 3
MOBILE SOURCE EMISSIONS FOR 1982
(Tons Per Day)
Project Count * % of Cont
CO .037 103.3 .036
NO .008 15.6 .051
THC .003 15.2 .020
*County averages £vom 1979 Base Year inventory+ Butte County
Air pollution Control District
TABLE 4
MOBILE SOURCE 8MIS9IONS IVOR 199:5
(Tons per Day)
Pro.ect Coin** / of Count
00 .14 56 .25
NO .03 22 .14
THC .01 8,1 X12
*estimates from Tito Chino Are _An AmDrUe ;et►dment
_ o The 3u� Oount, General Plan.. J 9 2:
T
D. HABITAT AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS
Rijhwa� Corridor: The amount of vegetation disturbed or
removed within tea improvement areas of the three proposed road
connections would total less than two acres. A botanical survey
of areas that would be impacted by road improvements was conduct—
ed in April, 1983. No new populations of rare and endangered
plant species were discovered. less than 10 1`le iob�> hrys
scriptus individuals were identified near the southeast corner o£
Che La Castana and Highway 32 junction; since this plant is not
endangered and occurs in local abundance; no significant impact
is expected,
Habitat within 100 yards of the proposed road connections
east of Highway 32 would be directly impacted Ly disturbance or
removal of vegetation, noise and a probable increase in traffic.
The amount of habitat affected, as a percentage of available
habitat in this ridge areas is considerad negligible,
Study Areaz Several potential. rare plants may exist within
the boundaries of the larger pra;iect site- Plants of special.
concern include the rare and endangered lied Bluff Rush (Juncus
lei.ospermusbusta};};
) and Butte County Check Mallow (Sidalgea rob
fare but not endangered plants that may occur on the project site
include Astragalus paupercult!s�, Wycadeni:a oppdsitif glia, Mimu-
lus lg aucesG_aeats, Polygonum bidtaalliae and B1agiobothrys scriptus.
_W._ The 1,500 acres of project area also serves as a habitat fot
a great variety of wi.ldlifa in the foothills, including resident
and migratory deer. Removal of substantial amounts of vegetation
and an increase in human and domestic animal populations may
adversely affect indigenous wildli.foi unless carried out pursuant
to a regional: conservation plan. (See Appendix V' .for full text
cal to
of botanhi ort.) p
Mitigation; All parcel and subdivision maps shall 'require
that initial anv-ronmental. studies be performed on project sites
as part of the conditions of approval. Mitigated Negative
Declarations and URG should be considered as a means of reducing
threats to endangered and/or rare plant species and wildlife,
Development that occurs should be in conformante with a regional
wildlife conservation plan and Conservation Moment: in the Cot, y
General Plan. Limited open spaces should be planned to asst
preservation of deet migratiOn routes.
B: TaAND USB IMPACTS
Aiglttaa Corridor: Less than two acres of open, though
partially i mpr—ovp–d—lanirl, will be further graded and covered with
impervious surfaces. The improvements would alter a fractional
amount of the total acrpage in this area. Ilse impact is minimal.
Story err_ TY►couras e continued de development of land in the
l access to Highway 32
will most probably encourage .however, are not
project area. The proposed road connections,
expected to significantly alter planned land uses in the project
area, since the anticipated ultimate use already occurs to a
Sesser density.
The provision of suitable locutions for all necessary 4om-
ir
munity land uses—including h�usisg-in a variety
sed goal of se tirgO��and
to suit various income levels General Plan. On. Page ��' the
Use dement of the Butte County
yshould "provide a diversi.t,y of
Plan states that Butte County
densis aand location." The
housing sites varying in s+ y
indirect effect of the proposed ttprojectoption ers that �i
of purchasing A thome
allowing prospective homebuyers he op
in a rural foothills setting.
rich of using is qualified by
The appropriate location few such hint out constraints and
other policies within the Plan, to P growth, so that the
limitations to be used in guiding community g- benefits and
ultimate development pattern maximizes community Arealin the Stua�
minimizes adverse ens tondevelopmentntal gincIlude limited water
A constraints ult access, steep slopes, unstable soils, high.
supply, diffic
natural fire hazard, limited areas for septic/leachfield systems
and abundant wildlife habitat.
Caltrans has commented on the apparent inconsistency of
foothill growth with the goals of the gtate's Urban Strategy
The latter document states; 'When urban development is necessary
outside existing urban and suburban areas, use land that is
r ad acent." It further notes that "costs stemming
iron la Cly j
from hack of sewage treatment, domestic water and solid waste
facilities occur when the project site is noncontiguous to
existi,g municipal Eacilities.
ll
ly
,rile study, An tithes Strateg; for Califny:niA�, is pritnazir
es.A more
applicable to urban rn I than liG tion torural Butte County is
appropriate study for referential application re prepared by the state Office
the Foothill. Develb went Strategy, p p
of, p'Lran i. g and Resaaxo OPit), A finz►l draft of the study has
not yeti been published.
pen
PAce
Stated policies it, the of, the County Generals Plan
conservation and Safety ElementsA are adopted
ad,ddress foothill dovelopment, T17c foltot�ing
planning goals;
,,. sorest
preserved outside ur6;��n areas.
1 and 'Use 1;1
Agricult��ral land should be .
Residential densities should be eo`rtel.ated to s0i19 slope'
water avail.abilitYs proximity to public
sewage disposal, capacities and natural: site
f,Acili,ties, traff3.c-carrying
0
4
characteristics. (p.34)
Commercial facilities should be grouped into integrated
centers, and placed in close proximity to residential
development,. (p.35)
A circulation system should be provided which will support
existing and proposed patterns and densities of land use. ('p.37)
Require adequate: drainage improvements f,)r new development.
(p.37)
Encourage expansion of private utility systems consistent
with County plans and policies. (p. 38)
Locate - ew fire stations with consideration to
accessibility, future development and natural fire ha„ands.
(p. 39)
Regulate development to facilitate survival of deer herds
and to prevent destruction of riparian areas. (p. 41)
Consider ',re hazards in land use and zoning decisions, and
guide developwent to areas with adequate fire protection.
services. (p. 43)
The conditional zoning and development criteria which would
then apply to the entire project are the following
1. Compatible with neighboring agricultural activities:
2 Evidence of adequate water supply and sepage disposal_
capability.
3. Availability of adequate fire pro'-ection facilities.
4.Adequately maintained approved road access with
sufficient capacity to served the area.
5. Reasonable accessibility to commercial services and
schools. (p. 49)
Circulation Element;
All parts of the circulatory system should be sealed to the
function they are to perform in conformance with the density and
total lopulatioo of an area And its related land use
requirements, (Design)
Routes and facilities of the circulatory system ehould be so
located and designed an to meet the d+jmands of both existing and
proposed land u►;es. (Design)
�C
0
Conservation Elegy located in
waste) facilities precisely
(PVainage and construction, many projects caa be timed
advance of anticipated reducing the incidence of later
into a single development thereby consequent rebuilding -
disruption to existing Facilities and
(8.3)
glen Sk�Se
Studies "'`'out -a be conducted to determine the. urban
development capabilities of the f oottl 11 and mountn=� �� area. (3•C)
should allow urban development only in areas
The County, suited t.such use. (3.1))
elopment should be permitted on highly erodible
No urban dev
'.�-ad ,. (3..�)
opment in
The County should regulate resideiltiaratlonlof deer herds -
foothills to facilitate the survival and meg
e recommends 20 to 40 .acre, or
The Department of Fish and Game ration corridors (Se
larger, pat�ceis in mig
Saf et Element= -Fire Prot °n
ations; in case of a major emergency or
Circulation consider stems must.
disaster, evacuation routemairi sin do And r for mobility oandysafety (A+
be located, designed and
b)
2. Ensure that road access for new development is adequate for
ur oses. (policy 7)
fire protection p p
and design considerations, Make protection from
Planning lanni,ng, regulatory and
fire hazards a consideration in a special concern for areas of
capital improvement programs
hazard. (Policy
"high" and "extreme' fixe .
Use ftiel.breaks along the edge of developing areas in i'high��
and "extreme" f ire hazard areas. (Policy 3) for new
Determine the level of water supplies necessar-y
development for f�,�-e r
ratectidn purposes. (Policy 6)
Reg
Mate use of certain bu�.iding materials it Ards of higher
than average lire hazard. (Policy 10)
velopment within project
important constraints to de shallow soils>
ednotedterrains erd z s and.
steep
boundaries include. Rugg. general plan. a,
o limited taster supplies; public s
limited
tie availability of minimum