HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-30 ORDINANCE 12 OF 16APPENDIX G
REFERENCED CUMULATIVE I"ACT STUDIES
APPENDICES ATTACHED TO
EIA FOR CANYON PARK ESTATES
E,IR FOR 'FOURTEEN MILE MORSE PA-C Elk
i
CLTMU`LATIVI` IMPACTS
Site -related environmental impacts have been reduced below
a level of significance through project design. Butte County,
however, --oncerned about the cumulative impacts of a number
of developments proposed between Forest Ranch and Chico because
of budgetary constraints upon Gouraty services.
A review of projects under consideration in 1988 Xndx.cated
J
that the County approved only i. of 5 parcel splits proposed 'dor
the general. area. Currently ,
however, there are at least 3
paration. Canyon
major proposals under review
wino in pre es. (see Figure 5)rwith
Estates proposes 109 units
primary access onto Humboldt Road, 800 feet west of its inter
section with Highway 32. This project is a planned area
cluster and will have community water and sewage disposal
systems. Two other projects, lsom--Hn.11 and 'Bidwell Heights,
are still in the design stage. The Isom -Hall land project
proposes 110-125 lots with access to Highway 32 via Santos
Way and presumably will also have community
water and sewer ,
systems, The Bidwell Heights proposal 0- in an earlier
6 This proposal will include
stage of design with a potential for 250-5010 dw�ellin uude a
plus a small commercial stare
fire station with 1 o n2meetin engines
a�crit aalan�eduasedevelopment
department to assist
boe Mill, Ridge area. The access provided by
proceeds in `the
Bidwell Heights may induce growth of an additional 200 or
more dwelling units.
The contribution to Cumulative impacts or 21 %,ni is in
the Fourteen Mile House project is 2.4% of the potential 500-
1,000 lots proposed between crest Ranc unteerhidofire department
munity sewer and water distr
Will .reduce some impacts upon Coltnt.y services, although no
the sheriff's
proposals osals are evident to reduce '3mP[Icts upon
department
Establishment of numerous w:�ter, sewer dtehseuri yccan
districts or homeowners associations throughouthealth
pose some. potential problems. State
ualifaodjlcertificatedcin-
need firm assurances that properly q
div duals ate charge proSeeremaintenance andand water tems and that
accessory
funds.are available dor p p
repairs or replacements. T dhfisc:.lnliab litiesnfordanyhe
county could a(,quirE, legal an
deficiencies obi` systetn failures:
d d Nfi ti ati on.s
Recommen a --
-� ` 'act assessment
should e8tabliyh benefit (impact)
I� butte County and oversee contract employees
fees to be collected by the county
or companies retained to Provide services to the various special
districts,
14 MLl Route PA -C IR 82-42
("March 1982
N I/
� � �I 1' ' � afAtrsra FCankht tlk f,a 1 i ,
CmS
! � 'y ��]♦ I,nFWIi,I d���a�,.�,w � i � i r•�i ", �
R lll y 2)41
SITE
F'ourRr"lti Hnnet,
1 (su4j r
0
a
a � lily a �♦,r;s1 a ,` Gwn"• !f � v.
t 1
1911 1 ,• t ,
4^?' tl« t + Ntmlllaw' d. ' +
« tea:�; �• (, i ", , yf,
� r .♦ .y� Y. a M ext �.
+, ,. . .�..�. = L� .`ryr yd'y� x'� � C` k i�N..yf r � 1 �y _ 1 • :l
1 � ay y�y♦ r, '. �r
r'r' " ' ; ��t#'t2 ' A'M I;N�.�.G�� � �" •'.,_' ��ixpr a'ri a
, ,/ rr.. � 1 • « . C I � �,.• 1 �,• x � r i . ,�1 � 'c J,yr - �--• � ♦ G'
a 4
a f 1 )a } •JY i • i ��i a � a r r •'t ��rr tr
y• � ' � % 1{ r t*rr' +,}r,. 'w. 1 ��.i dy 1. ��`•• w. ,' � 1 f y' a x
! Y ry5,•rfsal r' ; « ICJ, 'ti rd 1 d �'(✓ tr/•'+ 4iJ' c �! f . ' '
a� !' fbt +( � a• i•,•� ��• ♦ a��•�' / ", < 1 .: j,'' jr , +• ; y 1 yY i .,ar,
},q ' l �. '� r n! a•� � .��,.�1• 4!'r ria rr' ]. f 1 �♦ �. -�d.�� ��+
i `111 Y ! • ♦a j d 'y ° 1�. J �''• t, 11 I ix :!
/ •a r'
4ICt)• +� a Jt 1 d 1 r'��«. il.+, t1 e.r«� t Chi r 1 1 ��• x
1
' trl� �` ` ��, ✓, (t � � � r r di ��py jl[�� 1 it . �l � ' I ;,qr��# + rti a1 ,�,�
,,, i �' ',I 09 ,*��� k ��' ti� y 3� f. ilr +�"' r(1. ;Y� .0 �l r ( f'+" • �' 1 + r �y+•.��" m. . e� +a.. .
a Al _� •. C // r x,+
i ✓r
1 rd, ♦♦ ♦a�?•♦ ��� } �r�'1.A , t !�» � 1 �• �r! yy kxl 1 )•'�•, r tAl � x �♦ R
r. 1.4/ +. « a•w1a..i.,,t r1'r`A' ''.',•'zi�•1, _C4 ".�,,l Nr «. 'a '♦ a it ,�,,,♦� t;,1 Y. x'
•wW M
T ry pp
', 1x jc}. x Y �h!!I� i i u+lK �. r ,•' �� a+ � `1F11'�.:^_.:' •+ URE fs�
4 � ��x( �y "♦, f) _.eat •�''�•'u �''"i C�Z'i "�,6�sL� �� ��♦°
4 .
L�3Ii, DEVELOPMENT
IN
1 T PROJECT
AREA
!• F v
N
I
�*��x
A***iiii+i
•1 +
,8 •
ah ^
}
} � y
t Fr v
at,
I S•�s
flop SvnWp d{� xa V r ;1
•t• d
k Y�Y�.�
t
Ir,eo
1
4 .
L�3Ii, DEVELOPMENT
IN
1 T PROJECT
AREA
!• F v
N
I
�*��x
A***iiii+i
•1 +
,8 •
0
4
ANALYSIS qC IMPACTS
Project impacts generally fall into ti re -V categories:
Y)
Construction related. Tlicti,L, are in►lIuct" %�hicll "Ll"
c•ctiult froi,.i road and itouic.site con.struc:tion activities,
i.e. vegetation removal anal erosion/:;Oa uiGntution.
2) `rravel related. These impacts would result from travel
to and from the developmentover the I LCC of the pro-
Ject, .e.0 gasoline
aoline consumption and mobile air pot -
3) Habitation related. These are impacts which would
occur die to the presence of increased numbers of
people on the project site. They, al so, would occur
over the life of the project. included. are demand
for public services,. domestic energy, and water;
sewage disposal capacity; exposure to geologic: 'hazarala
and specific public health problems (iItosquitoes,
rattlesnakes) etc.); and long-term efFects on wild-
life.
In the opinion of the report writers, each of these im-
pacts can be reduced to a level of insignificancy: for this pro-
ject by implementing the mitigation measurer ncludod earlier in
this report. Some, however, cannot be totally avoided (see
previous page)
These individually minor impacts take on much greater
significance when considered on a cumulative basis. Low
density a i:esidential*development is widespread in the foot-
hills of
y creates significant imp as a whole, this type of
dr.velopmenttcr County,gang taken impacts related to erosion/
sedimentatioils loss of Wildlife habitat, demand for public
sErvice5 (especially police and fire Pro tOetion), and trans
p
ortation related energy consumption and air pollution. It
should be noted that most of these impacts would occur
gardless of where residential development occurs, but the
level of significance is generally much lower in an urban
area+ Additionally, mitigation measures are typic:ally 11110 1-0
easily applied or enforced in established urban areas.
Canyon Pare bstates t1R, 81.31"(November 1080)
�al=
justification such as the a f
` h pplicant s market study,. c0u:1�1 by
Specifically requested. As to the question of erle 7
this aha frog develop
project is not really an urban residential projoat. �t
certainly would extend the potential residential lots to 010 e
Of Chico. In one sense, it re ast
presents an extension of the �'olativell
remote homesites in the Stilson Canyon area,
V. Roads » The road locations are shown on the
plot flan.
Emergency access routes are also delineated. The
be paved to a width of 20 feet and the moan rands would
minor roads would have a
pavement width of 16 feet. Maintenance of the roads wouid
by the homeowner's Association. b$
VI, Aesthetics The ElR and the Specific ;Plan addras.s.—
the ,architectural control, that will be part of the Homeowner'
Associations
P4ti�aton measures/conditions tvil;l also be include
to retain natural vegetation, especially in the opens ice
A discussion of the Viewshed is ,contained an Page 23 0 areas.
g f the EIR,
VI;C. Cu-- la tive Effects of All Projects in Area —The
£allowin
g is quoted from the dra.tt ElR far t7.e Fourteen IJ -le Ho
Rezone located on a 168 plus or minus acre site ttdjacent.ta Hiuse
about 14 miles northeast of Chico, A draft document was ged', 32
for the County of Butte by Eco -Analysts Of Chico, pxepard
"Currently, hoWever thero are
at least three major proposals
under reviely or in preparat3.on. Canyon rk Estates
proposes 1d9
units on 1.1.00 plus ar minusacres see Figure S) With pr�.mar
onto Humboldt Road, 800 feet west of ,its intersection With Highway
access
This project is a Highway 32,.
Planned area cluster and will have community water
and selvage disposal systems.
TWO other projects-
Ysom fall and
M a
r
Bidwell Heights, are still in the design stage. The Isom -Hall
land project proposes 110-125 lots with access to Highway 32 via
Santos Way and presumably will also have community water and sewer
systems. Bidwell Heights proposal is in ,an earlier stage of
design with a potential for 250.500 dwelling; units plus a small
commercial store."
"The contribution to cumulative impacts of 21 tinits in the
Fourteen Mile House project is 2.4 percent of the potential 500-1000
lots proposed between .Forest Ranch and Chico."
It should be noted that the Bidwell Heights proposal is
currently for an estimated 385 dwelling units. This proposal was
submitted to the Planning Department on March 2, 1982. The EIR
and Specific Plan are expected to be circulated during April and
May 1582. The County has not received a proposal for the Isom -
Hill property located to the north of the Canyon Fail: Estates
project andta`the west n:v the Bidwell Heights land project. The
total proposed population From the three projects, within :lose
proximity, is approximately 1620 people in 620 plus or minus dwelling
units. The number of dwelling units is speculative at this point.
The f:e 'i i of 2.61
� persons
per household (1980 Census. £igtxre) was '
used to arrive at the Agure of 1620 persons.
VIII. Traffic. - ,access and traffic is d(;scussed on pages
23 through 25 of the FIR. It is estimated that the proposal would
generate about 1100 trips per day, with about 10 percent (110
occurring during the morning and afternoon peak hours. off site
improvements are recommended £or' the section of Humboldt x ►oad
I
w8
toffs CO. plernnfn', (�Otrm
MAY -28 1982
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Orovale. CaJ1fjfJi6
The State EIR Guidelines, in Section 15131, explains how to
deal 'with cumulative impacts in a project EIR
15131. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS.
(a) Cumulative impacts shall be discussed when thoy
are significant.
(b) The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect
the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence,
but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is
,provided of the effects attributable to the project alone. The
discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality
and reasovibleness. The following elements are necessary to an
adequate discussi��tx of cumulative impacts:
(1) A list of projects producing related or
cumulative 3wpeut.s, including those projects outside the control
of the agency,
(2) A summary of the expected environmental
effects to be produced by those projects with specific reference
to additional information statins; where that information is
available, and
(3) A reasonable analysis of the cumulative ,
impacts of the relevant projects.
(c) Mitigating cumulative impacts often requires the
Adoption of ordinances or regulations rather than the imposition
of conditions on a project -by -project basis,
NOTE: Authority Sited. Sections 21083 and 21.087, public
Resources Code; deference. Section 21083(b), Public Resources
Code; Whitman v. Board of Supervisors, 88 Cal. App, 3d 397,
Formerly Section 15028.5(c)4
1
Append:Lx 13 of Canyon park w
Estates EIR,' 81-31: (May 1982)
0
Fallowing the above format,
WV
(1} A list of projects producing related or cumulative impacts,
ilcludi.ng those projects outside the control of the agency:
A. 14 Mile House
H. Parr-•03'erril.l Rezone
C, Uzi -named 7sort'-Hall '.Project
D. bIdwell. Heights
E. Butte County Land Use Element 1979
(2) A sununa.ry Ot the expected environmental' effects to be
produced by those projects with specific reference to additional
information statin; where -that information is available:
A 14 Mile House EiID Log # 81-10-14-03 (Feb. 082 )
` s
This project • IL clustered development of 21
residences on a 186 acre parcel, located 2 miles
south of Forest Ranch. The site is adjacent to
Highway 32.
The. Expected Environmental Effects of �t'his Project
are (Page 27 - ER)
I. .Site could be subjQcted to earthquake groundshak ng
2. Storm, water erosion and run-off would increase
3, Two populations of the rare B dwell's Knotweed would
be threatened
4. Wildlife habitat would be reduced and a reduction in
carrying capacity will occur
5 The land use pattern and density on the project ;site
would change
6. The visual nature of the site would, chinge
7. Demand for public services and elecctrical energy would
increase by a minor increment,
.7-
B. Parr --Terrill Rezone ERDLog # 78-08-31-»01 (April 1980)
This project is an amendment of the Biltte County General
Plan and a proposed rezoning of 120 4ores in Little ChIco
Creek Canyon three miles south of Forest,Ranch. The
changes would reclassify the property from Grazing and
Open Land to Agricultural Residential with zoning of TWI-40
going to TM -10. The project: would allow 1'2 ten acre
parcels
The Expected Environmental: Effects are (Page 33 of EIR)'
1. Increased intensity of land use;
2. Modification of the undeveloped, wildland character
of the area;
3. Encroachment on wildlife habitat;
4 Loss of native vegetation and open lands
5. Topographic alteration of the site upon development •
of roads and homes.
C. Un -Named I80m-�HR.1 Project
The property owner was contacted concerning p
roject
4
de'-a'ls and timing. No definite plans have been formulated,
but fox' discussion purposes, bgtween 11.0--125 homesites .
would be appropriate Actual densities would be dependent
upon the environmental constraints,
No project planning
is currently underway, but because of its
Similarity to
the subject property, p ed to resemble the
impacts are expect; BIR
impacts for Canyon Park ,states. (Page 36+ )
X: Structures on t%
, site would be subject to earthquake
ground shaking,
ld_ increase;
2, Stormwater, runoff�exosion wou
3
3, Traffic and related air pollution and energy
consumption would increase;
4. -Some wildlife habitats would be reduced on site;
5. Demand for public services and electrical
energy would increase;
6; Residents would be exposed to potential public
health problems.
D. Bidwell Heights ERD Log # 82-03-02-02 (March 1982)
This project will contain 385 single family residen-
tial units, a small neighborhood commercial area, and
a recreational (public) use _area -t is located on.
a 1200 acre, parcel (group of parcOls) , seven miles
east of. Chico.
The Expected 'Environmental ]Effects are, (ETR - page 1)
1. Exposure to seismic "hazards:
2. Wildlife habita*' reduction;
s°
3. Traffic increases on Highway 32 at Santos Way
r
Intersection:,
4. Exposure to fire hazards;
'
and fire agencies;
5, increased service load on po7.ace
'
6. 1nergy use;
�+
Expansive S0618;
,
8. Erosion. '
This Ellet notes that Cal Trans has estimated the capacity of
Highway 32 at 15,000 vehicles per day, before congestion
factor. The EiR also projects each unit to generate
becomes a
, on the average.
7 vehicle trip ends%da,d
Butte CountyGeneral plan Land Use Element - 1979 (EIR
E.
tri pile, no 'number assigned), ..
l
P "4-
This project involved the adoption of the land use element
for the Butte County General Plan which included a. land use
map designating Approximately 1700 acres res of foothill
properties between Chico and ',7orest Ranch as Rural Residential
(later changing the name to Agricultural Residential).
The EIR (Page 80) included the following discussion:
"Conflict with existing land uses, -such as agriculturet
livestock grazing, mineral extraction and forest management;
higher costs of public services; increased probability of
encountering unstable or highly erodable soils-- limited
water supplies; high fire hazard and biologically sensitive
areas and historical or archaeological sites4"
The Expected Significant Effects associated with development
of these foothill areas (Page 92i MR) include-
"The.continUed expansion of rural residential development
will result in incremental increases in the cost of pro-
vidi.ng public services, some losses of agricul!-ural, range
and forest lands, and increased energy experidituros. A
Strong implementation program can reduce these impacts o but
not eliminate them." I
(3) A reasonablo analysis of the cumulative impacts Of
the relevant 'projects.
The following list of effects d'erive from a cross
of effects common to all (or most) Projects reviewed:
1, Wildlife habitat reduction
2. Erosion
3, Traffic oft Highway 32, with increased energy demand
4. Lo8s Of Open space
5. Increased demand for public Services (espediAllY fire
And police)
Fire Hazard
This list of common effects, over time, may inca,ude zsignifi-
cant effects, depending upon the cumulative severity of each
one. To reasonably assess this severity, an estima.'te of the
maximum probable Number of units is ;required.
For purposes of this assessment, the estimate is based upon
the following:
1.. All properties south of Forest Ranch will be developed
to the maximum density allowed by zoning and the General
Plan, except for those projects which have submitted
definite proposals conforming to OXisting zoning arta
General Plan designations. However, it should be noted that
certain areas
with topography of less than 20.30% slope may be
interpreted as Agricultnral Residential (1-40 Ac/du) in terms
of
GQ-teral Plan conformity.
2 Properties, subject to Williamson Act Contracts will have* no
development,
With these criteria; the following results derive;
MAXIMUM `
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION SIZE UNITS
Canyon Park 1100 ac. 109
Bidwell Heights 1200 ac. 385
I om - Hall* 980 ac. 45
Terrill - Parr 120 ac. 12
14 Mile Rouse* 1.68 ac. 21
400 ac. in AR (not in 400 ac 400
Williamson Act, zoned
A-3
Other lots in grazing and 5400 ac..
open land 160
TOTAL UNITS 1132
*Isom' -.Nall Plan designationr
ands rLand. ',14
of Orazing Open Mile House project, for ent
of 21 residences on
top of a rldge, can be interpreted as having
an Agricultural Residential designation and,�therefdre, in con-
formity with the General Plan, ,
y
x
One other
Project could increase this number. The Board
Of Supervisors could agree to change the General Plan Desig-
nation for the Isom-Hall esig-
Potential units to 80, Rounding�offctoat;�ng the number o,�
the estimate off' the maximum he nearest 100 units,
At 2.61 persons per unit the
m probable number of units .s 1200.
ersons: potential population becomes 3132
p This estimate may be higher than could realistically
occur on the sites due to site constraints (topogra h s
depth, water availability,'etc,). P Y, oil
ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
1. Wildlife Hatai:tat Reduction
This impacti accoarding to comments from Department of
Fish and Game '
personnel, would be restricted to parcels of
less than 40 acres in $ize, These
projects are:,
Canyon Park
Bidwell Heijhts
sarin - Mall
y`
Terrill Purr
14 Mile House
400 Acresin Agricultural Residential
Projects with lots of less than 40 acres would not create
significant impacts if the lots are cloistered, access to
the habitat and riparian corridors is maintained, and some,,
form ci' domestic %nimal control is incorporated into the
project, such as was done in the Canyon Park and 14 Mile
House designs. (See Verbal Testimony From Planning
Director re: DIscussi.ons with Department of Fish and Game
Personnel - Board of Supervisors Meeting, May 18 1982)
The Bidwell Heights project is still undergoing project
review, and mitigations can be incorporated into the project.
Isom Hall has not been designed; but also could incor-
porate adequate mitigations. The A-2, though it could contain
400 parcels, actually contains 32 parcels at present. if
the area is not rezoned from the current A•-2, the pote'1tia.l
for wildlife habitat reduction is very significant.
11 1
2. Erosion
The potential for erosion is great, but can be mitigated
to a level of insignificance with proper site •design, Stan-
dard soil protection practices and enforcement of existing
County building cede requirements for grading permits.
v
3. Traffic Highway . 32
At 7 trips/day/unit, a total trip generation of 9100 �.
ADT would result. Added to the existing level of 2000.ADT,
a total of approximately 11,,000 ADT would exist. Given that
Cal Trans estimates (conservatiVely) the capacity of Highway
32 to be "15;000 ADT, no significant impact to Highway 32
traffic is anticipated, althwigh a slight reduction in level
of service may occur at some intersections.
-8
4. Loss of pyeen_Space
Development of the Doe Mill Ridge/
Little Chico ':reek
area will cover portions of approximately '7.0,000 1
The present open space character is due more to torr --use
than as a result of any beneficial use (see Isom
hall,
HIR, 78-08-28-01, cancellation of Willi,-mson Act contract
viability of area as grazing 'land)
Insof ar as this land is in privat ownership,
its open.
space value is derived from persons traveling along Highway
32 (or trespassing.on private property) Visual access."")
the majority of this area is ;restricted by area topography
and road design; Clustering development in areas out of
public view from view windows along Highway 32 will preset e
the aesthetic value of this open space.
4, Increased Demand For public Services
Nearly
all projects anticipated in this area will have
individual or community water wells and
private roads
uently, or�l�� increase
sewage disposal, and will conseq
demand upon fire and police services.
Piro and polices services in the area are currently inadequate,
less funds are made
and are not likely to improve unavail
able to increase the 10ve,t of
service: Budget constraints
have ]ready forced the ce�Jssation of sheriff patrols in FOrC?s'is
Rarma, and threaten to' make nearly all f ire stations anto
.
volghtoer operations.
:jfiht, all development within the unincorporated
In t4 �s g
of Butte County Will. put further constraints upon
terY. ,.. ory 'gubus
the police and fire services, and the non -cont
im
•tt
developments non-contiguous (i.e.C contiguous to other :County Develop-
meats) such as Canyo:, Park 'Estates and the adjoining pro-
posals will, cause even more severe constraints.
Diminution of police and file services countywide can be
avoided, and several approaches are feasible, and probably
warranted given the diversity of situations throughout the
County.. Detailed study of this problem should begin
immediately, and in the meantime, all projects should;
A. Provide these services internally; or
B. Participate in Community Service Districts.
6. Fire Hazard
in addition to the provision of fire suppression, as
cru,
noted above, the "high to extreme" fare hazard rating for
this area of the County mandates additional fire prevention
,•
s
techniques. Failure to require these leatu.res in all
development would increase the potential for loss of life
andert
ro
p p y, (See discussion of fire protection in the
Specific Plan for Canyon Parr Estates for Potential Tech-
niques)
;i
4,
• i
Y
Y
_in-
Additional discussion of the cumulative effects of
development in the Doe Antill/Little Chico Creek Canyon
area of Butte County can be found on the following
of the Canyon Park EIA: Pages
Page Discussion
impact summary, and cumulative significanceof all Foothill Developments
14 List of a developments underway _y or Approved
when original EIR was written (Nov. 1980)
26Cumulative
R „
Cumulat .ve effect on fine protection
27 Cumulative effect on Sheriffs Department
28 Cumulative effect on energy demand S
31 Anal si's of impacts and cumulative
e .
significance,
7,
Supplement to ET'R -- 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,
of
ziIsom Halld division e includes tel Sectiofl 360 east Of Highway 32 and north
tentative parcel maps on AP 56-09-36, 44s
60, 61 and 65 The. Board will be consideringan a
Garbis on one of these parcels on June 15, 182„ ppeal for Marino
Land
includestthienSk+illinadtiviSubdivision Y to the
ofthe Bidwell Heights project
n (Environmental Development Inc.)
to divide 675 acres into 10 parcels 9f 11.173 acres and subsequent
divisions or Proposals on 4 of thoso parcels,
,
y y
c
r 1w er
1 ' !
Its '
1 '.. 141 ' • . 1' i
1$ ( %Lr-- qotxg\t
O , •
onto x + 1
♦ � ++' ! � �'.:"'"'�" -ra ' ! t i cam,
ZO
Will
r
'�/.+®➢fy C•.s� 1 M1(`•a �,�P..+sv�� 1, . ,i. t ; • {'IIAr'Y1�dM , •
• � ' 141 • + t � � ' • 1 . •
, i c
. !
'f
. `. r.• •a ♦,• f•�i�♦ ,1:r1•) �... 4ri ''♦�.. , ij'+,�� ` �11 'i 1 ,�i J• l i i,�rl �° , • r�{� •
' rr. �'�0b� ♦ n♦�:+ `••� i,,+ �• 'ti 1 1 r+ ' I,il,,i�' j''1
+
{{•(1'i'11: � � ' y. ..♦ . °....��: ,.L .y-j-.+, +.». ,. 4�+6j �.) L.r. •; ...... .. a �. G'��' � ry.`I..., w,. •,�r,+ n/ ... ... o.�,. .P,.. '•♦
Oil
• a ♦�A. , 1 A, , • ' ' 1! I iii ' 4. i IAS
iM► . '
{ • � ATE
PROPOSED DeVELOPAIJ15NTE
IN THE PROJECT AREA.
r«i
1 1 +
fC"r,
Aarm" SAO
+
JI ♦` •'1'•+,1� I • , I' �L cA+'lr 1 . ,4 1 + J O '
141 L G! 3
r
Mitigation hieasures for Cumulative Impacts for the Proposed
Development Proiects in the. Vicinity of Canyon murk Estates
The mitigation measures discussed below w lj regi,t:.,7e the
establishment of formal policies and regulation, by thy;! Butte`
County Board of Supervisors to ensure implementation on a uni-
form basis. All of the recommended mitigations are feasible,
but require that the County enact enabling stat:ttes to guide
project design and reduce adverse impacts upon the environment.
The simplest mechanism would be modification of the County's
Foothill Residential Zone by adding performance ,:standards which
would minimize environmental and fiscal impacts.
The Countymustconsider development of an impact fee
schedule which recovers a7:1 capita? costs related to new de-
velopments and provides funds for long term maintenance and
operation of services and facilities. Impact fees can be as-
sessed according to the level of service provided and the
distance of the new project from( existing areas being served.
A series of County Service areas could be established to pro-
vide the services for a fee related to the benefits received. `
1 Wildlife
Canyon Park Estat a was designed to minimize impacts upon
wildlife by clustering units - ay from restrictive and essential
habitat components such a4 food, water, shelter and reproductive
areas: Adequate separation of residential units from sensitive
areas and the provision of large undivided land areas reduces
Adverse impacts `upon wildlife. Other developments in the area
may not include th eee design considerations.
Recommended Mitigations
Butte County should develop a planninC policy or revise the
Foothill Residential Zone to require adequate separation of
residential development from essential habitat areas and require
access corridors between'water, shelter, feeding and breeding
areas:
Similar policies should also be established for archae-
ologic and rare or endangered plant sites.
2. Erosion
When butte County adopted the 1070 Uniform Building Code,
regulations forgrading on private property were included in
the code: (Chapter 10, Sect. 7001 'et.
Appendix 16, of Canyon Park
Estates MI 81-31 (June 198i
,
Recommended Mitigations
• Enforcement of these provisions would subject all construc-
tion grading to County review and help 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 the potential increase in traffic volume from:
known development proposals is significant it need not create
adverse impacts since Highway 32 has adequate roadway 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 32 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 Space
Loss of open space is significant when there are major
reductions in visual quality, wildlife habitat and populatioias,
or in the potential to meet future planning or food production
needs.
Since most of the area has limited potential for economic
production of food, eg., beef production, because of transpor-
tation costs and limited soils, the major problems are reduc-
tion in visual quality and wildlife populations. An obvious
solution is the clustering of buildings out of view. Clustering
also provides for greater expanse Y of open space, reducing iin-
pacts upon wildlife habitat and wildlife population.
Canyon Park Estates was designed to reduce vislzal and
ldlife impacts by using only 5(1% of the possible 220* build-
ing sites on the property. Isom -Hall may develop the same way.
Bidwell 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) developnient
r
Recommended Mitigation
The County should establish a requirement for clustered
49
development and use of vegetated buffers or screening as part
of a revised Foothill Residential Zone.
and for Public Services (sp
5, Increased Demo��.ifio it'ms for
fire protection are covered in. No: 6)
Butte County has continued to i houtprovide
regardctoblocatonination oor
rural and urban service levels w
distance from existing areas being served. Other counties
discontinued or limited many services in more remote areas im-
mediately after the passage of Proposition 13
Recommended Mitigation ,
i
Establishment of Community Service areas or special
districts with assessments made at the time of rezoning or .
tentative tract approval.. Funds, are required at this early
stage to provide services or equpment at the time the demand
for service or equipment is created.
2. Addition of building standards that require buildings
roof Standard building security
to be more secure and A. ,P
ordinances &re already available and are being used in com-
munities throughout this state.
ed
County inspectiott service
ostsfees
forshould,
developmentssmoreo
include mileage and travel t�.me office providing that service.
than 1,5-25 miles from 'the County
q, impact fee schedules should be developed to provide
service level's if requested. The fee would depend upon the
level of service requested (above the County's current capa-
bility)
and distance from the agency providing service.
Fire Hazard
Fire hazard increases with development in more heavily
vegetated areas and with increased distance from ,fire stations.
Recommended Mitigations
re
1. Establish a. plan to provide additional and stations
or upgrade existing ones based on the General Plan land use
designation,
L'3
U
^b'4`;R,.7TI, ��[•$+} .;•y�S �Ax j p,�-..�f5ie, ll '4Gd^i
2. The following should be required. a5
one or specific Part of a revised
Foothill Residential Z
In Foothill areas. Policy on new construction
a. Fire fuel reduction around new roads s and construction
b• Use of non-flammable or fare resists ti
materials on new construction. nt siding and roof
c. Provision of an, adequate water storage
to homes on Subdivisionsupsion ehydrants supply
o • , acradjacent
p to 3w5 acres.
d. A specific mitigation Ridge area mi g .ion Por the Canyon Park
Provision for a, fixe - Doe Mill
gine, and volunteer company before-. station, fire en-
houses are built, additional 100
This Ordinance i5 not utilized extensively at present. Applitan'j
for Subdivisions in the County have never beer required to 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. #1, 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 John Mendonsa of Public Works plan to inspect
the road on Thursday morning,'July 22. If the road, as it presently
exists, including any improvements that might have been made, is
not adequate to m4�et Public Works standards it would have to be
redesigned and eventually :improved to comply.
Since there is possible litigation regarding the access
road to this project and recently completed road in the vvicinity,
it may be difficult to receive definitive information about the
existing road.
Cumulative Impacts
The amount of information proviadd to date an cumulative
1.
impacts has beeli termed inadequate`by speakers at the recent public
hearings. The level of detail would be more comprehensive had a
Specific Plan been prepared for the Doe Mill Ridge area as proposed.
by County staff in August 1.9814 However, lacking an overall view
of cumulative' effects, staff must rely on the information `at hand
about those projects that are definitely proposed and merely
speculate about what ma -.peen on other lands in the vicinity.
If the vacant land in I'At. area is assumed to develop at the maxibluo
density allotted by the General Plan aria Zoning, an unrealistic
6 ;-
Aptiendix IS*- Canvon Park gstates PSR; 81.31 (July 1992)
v
figure would occur without acknowledging site constraints such as
slope, soil depth, water 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,
we had estimatedthatthat 620 new residential parcels would be created
We were focusing our look at currently proposed projects rather
than speculating on potential ,land division activity. If time allows
we will review the two exhibits, the one submitted at the hearing
and the one prepared by planning staff, to arrive at a revised number
of potential residential lots. We suspect a more accurate figure
lies somewhere between the 620 asad the 1480 figure.
APPENDIX li
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
APPI>OD R
0 K,wrorCF.i Qp L11 '1'} 12�lTNA'I' I:QN
t`tI
Secretary ;Co,r Resources
i� 14.16 Ninth Street, Ro0711 131.1
Saicramento, CA 05,814 20 1984
County Cle;rlk; County o:C hutte j TN
25 County Centex Drive �2LE1NORt,' 6ECKER,CoimlyClerk
Qroville, CA 9,5065
3y 1,(tam...:-..•.Deputy
1�1 (lri Fla1ming Depart;inent U5,I ed)
7 County Center Drive
Qrov;ll,le, CA 95965
StJt3,7RCT:ilirig o: Notice o Determination in Compliat� e with
Section 21.168 or 2.1.1.52 of th$3P� lic R3sourcO �;3G�7o
Pro j ect Title Road Corinec tans
State IIi hwa 32 -�
d to State Cl,i���ra�l1ghause)
State Clearinghouse Number (iJ submitted _�--
"
83110802 Te l.ephoxlAl ldUmbe-r
Contact Person of, pl annin4T (916) 53 4 601
A. Kircher Director
project Location Approximately 10 milers nort}least rt�t Chico
Pro ect escra.ption!
Application for three' additional P1 i c xoac} co'ttnect`i r�iis to
f i proposed Toad connoctions are Ton Mile
State I•Iighwa) 32. an p ,p
house Road, Iia Castana Drive and Al tata na Drive.
7h s to advi:�e that the B�i_� -nunt, toa d of supp'liv ��ors
i` na.tiO s regard:iw'cle
ngtheaho�ve -desc tibea
t1c1s iiade the 1 o'LlolviY detern t
project:
t 'o n
1, The pro;i`tCt Y will M
have a sgna.:Ci.ca
,nt e!'Cec
the en'vr.rcinment:
uJi11 not
2, An P,nviro, mental 11110act Re1aoC>;QA; l:t ti�as prepared ;tor this
project pursuant to tho prov:�,sions Of
and Was
his requited by Sec{:•1.oii 150.85 t g� y 14 California
Admilo.strati.ve Cade
A Negative Decl.az'ation �'qas Prepared for cQ1'sc.�r thc�ei�
ons o Cl'Q
1lirswant to the- prop as:� the I I,.-tnn.ang
Negat,vo Decl,aratiotl may be examin rt at t
nep�t tment, 7, County Contor 1}i, �ti+e, C�ro�r3.l•ie, 95565.
3, Not~ico o Ii,:�cmpt.an tra filed indle"Ating this Project
i i, 51 1 ro`In enviVOt MelltAl 1•Lviety.
was ttbt,
4 « A sVat orilenE of Cl��exridiii GollS.� cleration �'a
d Co this pro j oc.t" .
ac�epto '
r i�tc�awtlros> ado te(I by the t,ecarl Agen.'y to eduoe
.; Nl tl.ga.tIon
t}ic x�rl►acts cad
the rtipZ�to�ocl piol}ct are: of the F`Ct'.,
mitigations for traf.ioittil7ucts ire listed onanal ��
g �t
those 1tad lolls 111 the UIR ti II ✓/r
It ttl;ori l't,1i s�.tl>se�lticn,�
be udt5P tod and iili '1 cm
by
pro,j acts servo l tlic rotttl cr�tincc : t�� Iton A, Stt oct:or
,Tiri�._2Ci T,I}S �4 S017;10i''1k��itoi
Ut�tu
I _ .
AP1)t,N1) X F(
,-1, GE OF
DIl1'T Ri*91 NA'(''f 0,
C
Sec 01r1ry, for Resources
1�}j 1N.itttlz stx'ottRoom
[�t 111 4
StC.7'arlilic�,l�p, C(1A :/5581.4•
County C:1" ei1" C01.1111')t )r MPR 12 1984
�;O1.111%)f CC]1tC1' l t':i.lxpr Butte
ELEANOR M. BECKER, County Clerk
I1}tflr�l �a vi
11e, CA 95965
PizBy
'nr1 17 t; Department puty
7 Coilnt)l CGnt"er I)v ve
03.0 vi l.10, CA 95965 07 i IQ(1)
St.111,II.0
9 of 1\otico Of Determination in C
ptttixl lance x,
ti4c:t
Ion 211.08 or 21.1, 52 o C rile Public Reso tl.Gn,S th
' } $s�01�03�Q3 code
I ,1cct 1'1:t1.c _a.a_ 8347
3 27
a i r1 t"� ((7 ill�til;��' 7
St�tt`�: Clpcxriru * — 1?oacl COnnegtipns
illpLlse Number'(] f s i ttatl tcx 4Satp G';1 e�, in �lt.ouse
CcTntaCt I'olws0I'l,
Kcxc}1e1` A.
D,L ectox�' Te1,oCi}lark Nu111bor
_ �, 0 ' _i'lannino (91.6)
I'1Oject X"octr.t*.iOn Ajx ro�xmate — .-_.� �.U-1. 5 4-4601
1't1.,.-11c 1�oreS L R�1nc E\reams > 55.0 iiia les 10rthLa i t o:' C} p"
1'r' 0j oc t I)� - �_�_
�l" , l.1 c a f 1 :i o n t -
} P 011 Col` three lciclfi i o,tYa 1.1ub1. a c r7oacl cohiicc
St"cto }(1 t;itivay2: `['J1elroliooei x`aa,cl canneot;:o
-'to
co11s to
(I()tr►se 'l:oticl I,a Cast an�1 ;I)HV and Al tat7na
ns 1•C Ten Mile
`
Is to a c}; rise that
�.._.:
t}1c dui to Cpunty l3 'r1°cl OF Sit Derv-'
- •-.. tsars
h
a.s nadc t17e 1n1 ] oldxng cletcrinithA r� On�1 c )project: i1uti,ons roiaT in; r
)
bav;e>descr'
1 'Jhe project lbccl
71 r., a ti, t r :Fact on
t}te er7t%i•altltt�.11t"
r_ iv i 11 ri o t
2: An Eng}1.1`pnrnclltia`( T1111)"Ict Hopot-t IV
pro arca 7 5 .
pr'oJect Iui'artatlt is the }�pv.i.`}iot1�;.0 CI:\,t at�c1 wthi
as
r.cit7 J':ic ci �1 1,0(px i rod bye ,�c�c'11011. 1, SCJ"c35 ��) ra
Atltnxna:;trat:i �e Code, 1i.Eolnaa
A N,aga.titiro}ai`oI�Fr1`��d .Co7. lits
ptl7utttnt to t11: I1oti� s�o1ls o.fCi;r�a: A ca s, f�1'bject
t�'e �,41tiVU Dec1at1t X011 mj� �o c�. 1Y of tho
Dc' t� Cltlntyf ; Cc �t t. �,rtti r�ltx 1 i1 t; the r'1
CoYtt e1 1Ji.)l•0k i1'It , CA 95965}
fk Nottico p,f vixvm 'tir11
��� l� t� t. G1,•s f �. � cri t t,
JS c`:h. 01pt 1110111 c.nv]Oilillrctt�,.ilva)jry�a�r.tl,ti� this pi`a.,7oct
r ��
'- 3
strttc�hlt'tlt orCivel't arl,i.n , rat,
ac}c)11 tud fc11, : i t 11i a ;Ic t'a t 1 o'i1 IVA8 � � .�
t+i11.i p10� iR!c t [�.� : tiaa.�, no=t,
Atit��tt':ior1 rnel�z� ,� "
�ilwtt`�,. acl;t)i�tr't"1 iJ�� ti:(i 'IaC'iiK� a`�4;c:�.0
thr, a nllictc� t cif t ho air}�,,t cai's�ti I� 1 tai ec` �t y' 0 roe uco
� I1l cme �tltor(:�fi� ;1i15ui� of t,, t"l oh 1110C181-1 will, will bo ac���) tOd an
w1 i c
h .'i`1"V(`cl bV 5 1 G'tIt • pro'! vet I Cl
'1`ltosc.� det.r 1mi�iatlorls tv:i'�.I 1)v
ado {�� t�C ra�aci �Qiitle't".� 1
v the California 6.
1 t'itr1s-pC1rtF1 i it3ti comm is o
�11111'1�1
Z T�B�tci1l ,
Jctto ... .��,.. .(�C"ri iai
it rq. �� t'1•c
'at"act ..'
TO; iitrcl t, d. of SuperVisors
FROM; 1�11-ann i.ng Departrlent
SUpJECT. 1l:ig}itvay 32 Public Road Connections Apri.1 i0 Iletrxin
DATE- April S, :1984 la
'l'}re purpose of tlae public hearing is to allow input
Proposed road connections With the assistance of' Caltrans Ca'ltrans'erthree
serttatives in a support rapacity. Since t)e marl connections.
would ultimately be reviewed for a ed.�r. c
portation Commission, Caltrans staff will, be able to respond to
questions on stems to be taken subseriuont Y the California l'r�uts-
to the Public hearing.
At the cone Lesion of t}ie public hearing 4"
becmaden,�at�at i� pub.tic inpr.it occurs }v���c}�r7e�uix•ril �s that we responses
lose comments Wo would request that t};. s}�anse5
a "rnoton of intent to certify the E c Boar make
the spaca Bic comments" and Conti nue -final action ctionoon�ccrtxeS to
rethc; es, for at least tiro weeks to allow staff to prepare Mie 1
responses : cert -cation
Ti your Board detex'mY.nes that no response is necessary then a
\�,, recotmnended motion to cei t i.fy t}le ETR would be "Because Because we have
t}teycomments received t11erloncl'a�t Envlronenta
• T .
1. impact ?Ceport,
I, therefore we c _ dIld the responses to those comltlants,
Impact }:eport>it}yas
been cantpletedYan}Icolntile incl, },nv
Environmental Ua;lit thenCalial
. p neo t�.Lt}I the Ca].ifoxnia
.Q y pct Cu�dol,'nos and Butte Cr, ,lt'y Env x'anmentrtl
}2evi,eiv GLz del Ines ''
It would also be a
z`o}Priato for t}le Board to forward a recomntenda-
tion- that either`'A the three proposed road Connecta'
House, La Ca,stan dive and. Altatina Urivr be a ytions at 10 Mile
Cal ornza. 7'rltlspo;i•tat3.ar1 Caltonfission (C'}'(;� o • B
only the 1:0 Mile House Roatl and the �l(C"'C) �� }7riv� red by tat
roadi
approved, by tiae C,,r(i tiva t}I o Frontage Alta coy aecol Road tleCt�o that
(refr xs With
l tcx•nat i aGC# 1 o1 the vicin3 ty o f xnet tx,rt� 1p M,
11 )•Cause
i'
l,a Ca.stalia Drive,
n } ttgo 4.ti of t}to
In addition, the Board's reeoln)ncndat:i ori on the
oil-
n }'a};e 31 of the ETH Would be o,F inter`a� m1 tigatiolis listed
rltechanxstlts ,Box` impravemotlts at tlae i.ttcrsctioonsaivaC} ,
are an integral }�Ltlld�n
Part of ap}yxo�rIng now Public 7•oad. con7ie�c�hway X32
ment.q. ian moasure. }C2 would td.dross the fttticl.i,tt Of highway mGllt 5 , g _y iTllpro�fo v
DR�CiL�L1�iJli.irc t}lett .�Lltds (�t� cCc7a;,:Lte�C t�=;%tlr the '
} County
fax
Public iiotxd rtpproLlr}res to Ca,l.ta�rtns st�tnrlai=cls as Gt�cncltant
a[` itpp2`ovt�al :fax` a1.1 px`oCroSecl l��.nd c}.i.v5�%oiys alis} stCt�clil�asio-
:�ex`ved by those, roads, 11s
�P
Board of Supervisor
Ili;ghtvay 32
Fuge Z
April. 5, 1984
Mitigation measure #3 also has a bearing on road construction and.
maintenance.
3, form an assessment district to maintain all project area roads
to County standards,
In summary, this hearing is somewhat different from other hearings
that the Board holds in that the decision to actually approve the
public road connections is within the jurisdictt 101,1 of- another
public agency, in this case the California Transportation Commission.
The public hearing is being held within: the County, in.. order to
facilitate local. input.
If you have questions about the procedures for the April 1.0 hearing,
please contact the. Planning Department prior to next Tuesday:
SAS : lr
Attachment
ppY
"Cwo
suggested by Ca1tCaltrans'111 a, tc�:ephone
co X -revisions to tile ETR 84
er� atio'n of April 4, 19 .
a.aragrapll delete the word ","
facto ' in the ninth
Page 25, last p
-le so the sentence begins to react: "Based. on a. peak hour o
;l, x.1
°�1 second fiu11 paz`agraph - delete rc:�creitcG to "900 feet
Paige 2.cr liig}ii�a�y speed of 60 m.p.h.".
and Lipper 1 speed of
�i, , . assuming opc1"t' ing P
Substitute wording tiroulcl be si ht da.s�a.nCe of
50 m.p.h , 606 of the roadwa has a assing e Of
"
150` 0 ::Feet or gseater.
.•
I
y.
r"
Inter -Departmental Memorandum
rot Board of Supervisors
FROM: Planning Department
SUBJECT, Highway 32 Public Road Connections - April 10, Hearing
DATE" April 5, 1984
The purpose of the public hearing is to allow input oil the three
proposed road connections with the assistance of Caltra»s repre-
sentatives in a support capacity. Since the road connections
would ultimately be reviewed for approval by the Californ-ia Trans-
portation Commission, Caltrans staff will be able to i,espond to
questions on steps to be taken subsequent to the public hearing.
At the conclusion of the public hearing on April 10, the would
recommendthat if pui-lic input occurs which requires that responses
be made to those comments, we Would request that the Board make
a "motion of intent to certify the EER subject to responses to
the specific comments" and continue final, action on certification
of the EIR for at least two greets to allow staff to prepare the
responses:
If your Board determines that no response is necessary then a
recommended motion to certify the EIR would be: "Because the have
reviewed the contents of the draft Environmental Impact Report,
the comments received thereon, and the responses to those coninents,
I, therefore, move that we certify that the final. Environmental
Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the California
TnvironmentalQuality Act Guidelines and Butte County tnvironmental
Review Guidelines.''
It would also be appropriate for the Board to forward a recommenda-
tion that either A) the three proposed road connections at 10 Mile
House, La Castana Drive and Altatina Drive be approved by the
California Transportation Commission. (CTC) or B) recommend that
only the 10 Mile House Road and the Altatina Drive connection be
approved by the CTC with a frontage road connecting 10 Mile House
Road with the residences in the vicinity Of La Castana Drive.
(refer: to alternative #4 on Page 43 of the ECR)
Iii addition, the Eoard's recommendation oil the mitigations listed
on Page 31 of theP1IR would be of interest to the CTC+t; nding
mechanisms .for Improvements at the intersections with Highway 32
are an integral part of approving new public road connections.
Mitigation measure #2 would address t1,w
lrients funding of highway improve
2. Require that funds be deposited with the County for improvement
of. public road approaches to Caltrans standards as a condition
Of approval for all proposed Land divisions and subdivisions
served by these roads.
Board of Supervisors
Highway 32
Page 2
April 5, 1984
Mitigation measure #3 also has a bearing on road construction and
maintenance
3. Form an assessment district to maintain all prcject area roads
to County standards.
In summary, this hearing is somewhat different ;from other hearings
that the Hoard holds in that the ,decision to actually approve the
public road connections is within the jurisdiction of another
public agency, in this case the Californi-1 Transportation Commiss gin.
The public hearing is being held within the County in order to
;facilitate local, input.
If you have questions about the procedures for the April 10 hearing,
please contact the Planning Department prior to neat Tuesday.
SAS:lr
Attachment
`I1J0 rGVisions to the EIR suggested Caltrans in a telephone
cwo Cvat3.on of April 4, 1984.
III, e 23, last paragraph - delete
ea e 1JoBasedannoa,1pea'k hour ill the �Of
g
line sc the sentence begins to r
140 ....". 9
11
Page 29, second full paragraph delete reference 'to
,) 0 feet
speed of 60 m,p •l1:" .
and upper highway p
�' ..: assuming oper�a.t� i,�t� speed Of-
Substitute
f
Substitute woodin would be, g .• ce of
g
50 m.p.h. , 606 of tile
itroadway 'leas a passing sxgl�# c
11500 :feet orrea;tex
�s
Inter -Departmental 'Memorandum
TO: Board of Sulpoyvisors
FROM! Planning
suaJtCT; State Highway 32 EIR
DATE, April 3, 1984
Highway 32 is scheduled for hearing; by your Board on
April. 10, 1984 at :1:30 p.m.
In order to give you more time to review the E I R, we
are giving it to you today :instead of putting it in
the packets going out to you on April G 1981.
s,
.a-
' s
eel
"
Chico �j c1�1t7'1.'Kt fl
Dept
Lt R. A. Gray
Cal"If., HIgh1q"Iy Pat'Tol
FuI,:I,ic jgorks
:���n
P. o. Box 177
95926 t
P• U. Box
95927
Chico, CA
co, CA
Chi,
i. Chien Utl.i..ried Sch. Dist:
stoll
Patti 1�'e,
Caltrans, Dist.
116.3 ha. 7th' Street
Chico, CA 95926
703 B Street
I�IttryTsva.:l.lc, CA 95901.
Air Pollution Control �
3.5ttrveStT
331 Ii'all ut
31 :Str
Agrictlltural Contm•
Chico, CA 95926
316 No~ j s>ox Avenue
provil,le
*Gout xer _
Jim Stand -lea
Sheri f's
Caltrans, Dist. 3
Butt' CoLlilt"f
UcpartmetltMarysva.11e,
703 B Stfi`UCt
CA 95907.
Gouxie.t, _ Orovillc
T�utto County Library
Dric Ha.itscn
Caltrans, I.)�.st. 3
Chaco i3xc nch
703 Y StvectCA 95901
*Courir.l'
Ctt L . S'tate Univ. , Chico '
Alan BLIYC tet t
r
1388 yei Late
Library CA 95929
Clt Co, CA 95526
Chico,
2
CA D(.,'I)t. Forestry i
Co. Fire Dept•
8trte
176 Nelson Avenue
%�CoLITior " Orov:i.l o
13TIVi't`on, tle*c;tlth D O1
+ ,
*Cour;ler Oz`oval'1e
Y)ul)'L io IgorkS I.7eP t
wti 'lli:aun ttt•cYt .
1�sst1.
/c/``'sell1e�ix�3Y�:LCafitm.
P, 4� .
Forosh Itat�eh, Cts 95rJ 2
a raY ;�olson e, Assoc
5 Q 0 VI'all, S t'` Cl r* t
Cl'lLCC3,y CIA 95916'
c i'r L J. ,I �c�C ric' ,.'i ► on J.1:({ ' L10J..
it �t 1 / J 1 JlJ 4•tI1 V�) Ln!Iit.s,
W,FNI'o Wtt,O 'al,[ ) i % ��I .. 3rJ.��h)i7r:. %tV/iiZZI�C
�.1).i
k t.
116P�A �C, V001A10110 ("o.
C) l :i C! 711 t)0 Avo711iC
(IIJ co
i,Go
Off,j�c(j 3420,
C;il:i co (:/� f) 51;, r/
Parsons wi ti7 - recoivcl
letter advising o
ava labilit>r of ETR
i
�13:I.�G' .1:3C)�[..17)'i.:I.C:ltd G) � h,
//; 1 .i.l ♦�N 4'�.:[^'.('�w �1 t :(. 1.. MI. E.e
:i3Cy L Lc 11--QQC! ,1'J i..bx-a y
� .y • C��t���� Y.
4 )�
U.t'cyr.i
i
'
G i c 1. r.±a ; C` „ _ . %> ✓r'"1
3,' C> F12:t".r i':r'' Qr' 1
ca1..i 1'I
031 . c:a
U.ra:! .Ca.
r
oc) , �c;:l•(� �.7, :r)a �; i
�•,��)c �1�'eY ). �it131 c l";IcI
1163
-r/'Lb
stvaot
►
t
J)Gaiac..
t►i' �'.� r3�'f
t�. Cic)•Ir1.C) %��
GI'�.i r;cr,
Cr
95926)
C)a j, fL-uC3.1a )(*1
a ,CJS
, �C r� i �1C:) )1)�tr, t' (.,} fit! [. [,t,CC) I 'I.Z:�,c c� h
yCy/�0 .IIT l C t14�[,l7 3's
Opov,).. I C, i C lj1. 95,9 rfy
IN
C�iXi«.i)�i' ii.11t tlr +� C;{IrCr(:1
,M1J-A,. A fi,,r [,it(vlt,
C,Z!) ( O, Olt, ��,G)i,'
G rt>>;:1,�a,� LY� UGI�x� J'l• r h
4
'[j.rl.i ,v.
C;)),i CSC), C)t(.
f�-
C;iaa:t, 0I I.; oo
Ccs.
aacri=° '
u alto C
r
1 ?G NC11 ;cm Avc iiiJr,;'
C.
kll.i't'7t`M�"rtLx,la J1C�'I i I C
,
�e1)`l;i.�C It\i• ia:LG'C':I;'r',t C..I1�'I7
�13:I.�G' .1:3C)�[..17)'i.:I.C:ltd G) � h,
//; 1 .i.l ♦�N 4'�.:[^'.('�w �1 t :(. 1.. MI. E.e
� ISJ Jiir:.IJ.ioj1
� .y • C��t���� Y.
4 )�
U.t'cyr.i
i
'
G i c 1. r.±a ; C` „ _ . %> ✓r'"1
3,' C> F12:t".r i':r'' Qr' 1
ca1..i 1'I
1
�•,��)c �1�'eY ). �it131 c l";IcI
J3t),(.[.': Cit) i11�,�}r Ir,l•�);t.YilC''
S
iy r ii r �iY"61z>fie1.
►
t
i
t x:41 )t 3,+F#K «'i. i<ri..Y lt.j.u':{c, y.x �..t,. ,=•.+4,.x
,5
Z
fi7 llivatis
9Q0
On
co, CJ 9
forest 't air'}y, t oMin. Assn.
1'. 0. lox. Mss
FOvc, t. Ranch, CA 9594,2
11't 1 1101)
1879 IIOOZOT,,Qa k vtxll[1(
CA
Chico, CA 95926
Lt. R. Ai Gta
y P Jim Standlee
Calif. Highway Patrol. � Caltrans list. 3 i`J rxc Hansen
P.0, Box 1779 703 B Stxcet CtIltra{ns, Dist. 3
Chico, Ca,. 95926 Mar•ysv-ijle, Ca,, 95901 703 t3 Street
Nft y�sville, Ca, 9590)
`Fatty h'eston
Ed Palmeri
C.
Caltrans, Dist. 3 ty o Chaco F°ox`o:;t Ttanch. Cd
03 nnluniy
7' B. Street 106 Di 5th Assoc-.
Mary v:iIle, Ca. 95901 Chica, Ca, 95926 P'Q' 801% 331
Flora$ t; Ranch, Ca.. 95942
17vC SuTveyors
331 M-111 Street Bart D. JVelsorl Assoc. BLitt Cc�urtCy Library
Chico, Ca 95926 500 Wall Street Chaco
Chico, Ca. 9597.6
CSU, Chico Library
Chico, Ca. 95929
�- e
March 20, 1984
Re: Highway 32 public Road
Connections -hearing on
Tuesdays Apra -1 10, 1984
at 1:30 p.m.
To jgHOD1 IT MAY CONCVAN . for three
ervisors set a public hearing
The Board of Sup has hway 32, northeast of Chico.
public road connections to Nig ,
H, f� ed as 10 r4ile douse Road,
The three road connections e l les southeast of Chico
7,a Caste Drive, and Altai na Drive axe located on the east
side of Highway
32, approximately l0 mi
in the porest Ranch area, April
in at 1:30 p•m• Room, on Tuesday�Cente
The public hearingbemill ► 25 County
10} 1984 in the Board of Supervisors
Drive, Orovillei
in p
as revised, t,eparation for
1.
We are 1eprintirig the Drat p1R, ,
taming ]fearing. Conies of the sxe tliirdl theunext twolbe
weeks,
the up encac
forwarded to local ani state ag
Additional copies Sill be fortvaxdect to the library branches �n
the 'Chico area. please contact
If you have further cl
uestions about this mattet`,
our office.
Sin.cei•ely
B; A. KIRCHi;R
DI;'TOR bP LNINA
en A. 5t eetet-
Senior Vfanner
ITtM ON WHICH A DRAFT BNVIRONMBNTAL IMPACT
RBPORT HAS BBBN PRE -PARED
All interested persons are hereby :notified that a (Draft)
f;nviron-
mental Impact Report has been completed for the following
project
State Hightivay 32 - Pile #83-47 - Application for °t:ltree
additional
public road connections to State Highway 32, no tt beast
of Chico.
The proposed road connections are Ten Mile Houses Road,
La Castana
Drive and Altatina Drive, located approximately 10 miles
northeast
of Chico in the Vor est Ranch Area
Copies of the above mentioned draft environments) .Impact
report are
available for public review at the Butte County Planning
Department
at 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, the Butte County Library, Chico
Branch, Caillornia State University, Chico Library and Butte College
Library,
B. A. Kircher
Director of Planning
To be published in the Chico tnterprise Record on
_ _
1-1 It. t 't ,t,l.'A "E"),1 I%,/ Lt I; (T-,
C? �t)'l,1► Ir.aLe RIA. 'IpI
:r.�It�►�xr'(. �)� C
nui TU until c'
X50 carr: AVc,art CI
Chico, M. 909P6
Pacific ya of ohlrc)lto Co.
M Rio Linda 11vonuo,
Rm. 3 02
C111co, o, CA 9590
Cli:i.c:o:F)►.arl�r,.�,a�;'�; WL:i: G
}'Ofil; C).C-f:i c:(i Box 4 P O
Chico, CA 9592
Chico Uii,i.f:i.ora ;;c,1roo 1. Dint
ohloo, Ca, X59
C1�:r1�aCox 551 (SnoWd on)
�
>�► voila
-nbxor"a A-vorma gyri hr`c)V03 0gy Pc"M
C�twi Gc) on, � ✓�' CIO A, Cu,
PO. S011s W1,t), * 1'ecoi-vee
letter advising Of
ButtO 00,
Route. 1, .I)OX
y
'(r'.ri:i. v
1? ,. , GJ i'i. C)Cr
13.i Cr'I r(;;tY c l)t ,. 3� , .kr1 Lhoy r y
Chico on, qqjp�'
f"ii,flW tl,t�iv. z woo
C�rrc)l;lyrlphy zir.,,:) rwik:►r;; 1,
T
(),► I : state Univ., Mao
M 1r1Y11 i��
Clt :l r.�L�l. , t' U ,i. o U
y:, vChico,i,'.11,
MAJOR Worm �fy �Dc'pt
Chico, Cox. c�
X Davin
]:,ocicmro,.IiChico, 00,
110.08 wo-
` ✓ yi
A I U Gn),l . Audubon �U:i 0t y
X �Y (K rbcr_41
Hi+7 ajo gjnvjnll
K- 06 l
]`I:i
:l.0g
•il r, �.t t,11:i [ , r� ; yy tt
SJ' ��t•' PI%ol,���""
C�t"C f}r v,
77C;/o
i
.C1.Lr .I ��
O r'ov.i. l .L c:, CA
1?•G,b3:':I'a CAN
HoMO#
ta.ir poll via on conl.,CC),I. cry
.Agric ul Ltn%3 Ct)mm i., ,:x:i.Q)
circle e
1 R
L'i ` c:;l.tac,rr
r
�+ µ1 ♦1y
y`✓l lV"��} � t {.�1SY •\'M i '�` 1
I%
'I"i lL L•l V ► t �+ . 1. S ` �ar�'Yl•i
China,
WWII(,
c
r
i
Cpl.�6. j
HMO •t O Nl a n �' roc.:` a"y
r C) J y l t► i, u m
311 l,ta Clc7u'1rty M:►`art I``ry
l� 4, Poi 5001j;
C,�y'G►:r.i.E,I` C),yy� �.i'1.`I.t
LD* UA N&VZO
:, C,ouv:► o r.` D ryoti a :J l -C.,
i
'ty'1 M$fk' %'y L3Kry;,4l+i iy:.yt 1A..FnT 1.♦ Ht ,: J'C'-Y3P1)'f ....
:C'�x1);l.a.c) �P'a:r•3;;3 'i�t���rl:r:r(^z�?c��xt:
R
a
Chico 2000
P. 0. 13ox :3,509
Chico, CA 95927
W1 110 m 11u rc)t
Porost R Illclt COMM. Assn,
P. 0. 13ox �S1
1*OI.'ost I:aryc;l , CA 95942
Ivi a.l 131.sho :c
i 579 iC��okr `
Odk AVOMLI
l.�.it+;l ti'c 'i a►t ,se A soc .
1 33 .S11,t.1,G
igg'dihtA.ti r?'9y., �n.7 Y'1 i•',t's� aT`'7'*"'ETCS'»,'„y { tE iy'r_
ac `F".�`t'r4
z ,��f SV-ice-�.
S.~..{
OF;BUTT STQ'1'E'UF CAi1FOR1\liAFy'
"a"3+s _ s' �°•°''s..., �k +-.. wnor rpm'" y't+
�'siC4y`�
��lati.+ltZt"��a31.rc:,r
9 � —" —e � F• s...w..._Ct'�:s�±'t�i�. �^.5'�"n?rS-kx...:s: °�;s'h.,�.J '!s�� `^3, c4�,.�.n� "i"` '
CoResolui On. O. 84-45
a��aansn�
A: RESOLUTION OF THE BUTTI. COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS SETTING THE HEARING FOR THE
THRRE(: PUBLIC ROAD CONNECTIONS PROPOSED FOR
TETE S,ECT'ION OF HIGHWAY 32 SITUATED TEN 11ILES
NORTHEAST OF CHICO __
i;'HEREAS the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution
No- 77-182 at its regular meeting of November 22', 1977 r'eques'ting
additional public road connections to State Route 32, between. 10
]~file House and Garland Road;. and
WHEREAS, the three public road connections to State
Highway Route 32 under consideration traverse a section of Butte
County in which land divisions have been pending for an e-xtended
period of time;
N°Oir, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Boardof Super-
visors of the County of Butte,; State of California, that a public
hearing be set for Tuesday, April l0, 1984 at 1:3`0 p.m. in the
Board of Supervisors' Room., 2S County Center Drive, Oroville,,
California- Repres-entatives of Caltrans will be present at the
hearing.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, this 13th day of march 1984,by
the Butte County Board of Supervisors,by the followxng vote:
[YES
NOES
_ABSENT:
NOT VOTINTG:
AL SARACENI, CHAIRMAN
Butte County Board of Supervisors
E-VTTEST: PMRTIN J NICHOLS, Chief Administrative
Officer and Clerk of the Board
By
1"11H 1). NOSoll tS1 ASS(wilift
330 Chico,
W111 Street Cahrorni8 1916)
Stn le 6 95926 891-0491,,
I mid Use 1111tillilig
I 110"011111cillul Swdio
Permit AssistillIQe
ITIRS111011y Sitidics
February 28, 1984
B. A. Kircher Buffo Co. Planning Comm.
Director Of Pluuaing
Butte County Planning Department R) 2 ) 19 8 4
Oroville, CA 95965 otoy'lljo, California
Attu: Mark Radabaugh
Re: Response to Comments on DEIR for Public Road Approaches to
State Highway 32 Submitted by M. Radabaugh January 27, 1984
Dear Mark,
Attached are respodses (to comments) and revisions to the
D11 '.R for Public Road Approaches to SR 32 based on comnen . ts
oubmitte(, in your correspondence to EDN,, dated January 2 1 7, 1984.
I appreciate your thorough review of the DEIR, including the
necessary correction of my LOS figures, Which were Apparently
based onanalternative interpretation
Volume''* discussed in the High n of the concept of "Service
.�aRfSitX Manual (1965). Since I
defined Service Volume as an average rather than a peak hourly
volume) subsequent calculations differed from those derived using
Your methodology. Moreover, as you and Caltrans observed, peak
hour volumes are probably a better approach to estimating
periodic adverse impacts, rather than exclusive reliance on
ADT. *
Most Of the tEcommende'd revisions contained in your
Correspondence have been incorporated into the D8tk as suggested.
Vor those comments Where but analysis and tegfiOrlseS are not
completely in accord with your assessment, or special explanation
is appropriate, a summary of Your comment (C) is presented
followed by our respo
I use
I contacted Caltrans D.8ttict, Oft -ice (03) 'Fobruary 6 to
clarify portions of their correspondence to you, dated January
20, 1984. Wesley tAim, indicated that his office was again
reviewing the referenced concept of Service Volume, since the
Hi hwa 2ILa—CL51 Mautl6l is not consistently clear about its
Application.
Demographic data indicates that ffiAftY future residents it,
the foothills Would be either fully or Partially retired. Many
residential trips, iit!*, wotild not be expected- to occur during
typical peak hour. Perlodg, thus reducing the peak hour figuvt..
(16% of AOT) adduced in your tommentgO
C-1: Ootential impacts from termination of Land Conservation
Agreen —It contracts, increasing buildout beyond projected 107
dwelling units, not analyzed.. (Page 22 of original DEIR)
R-1 A broad spectrum of factors could potentially affect
buildout on land. between Chico and Forest Ranch, including
general plan and zoning amendments, availability of less
expensive land in other planning areas neat Chico --and non-
renewal of LCA contracts. As noted in the DEIR, the Study Area
encompasses approximately 1,543 acres. in estimating the number
of potential dwelling units in the Study Area after full
buildout, land currently under LOA contracts was included. Most
of this acreage (1,145+ acres) is designated GOL, Ini.nimum 40
acres per parcel in the County General Plan, The remaining
acreage is zoned TM -40, or A-2 under an &gricultural"Residential
general plan designation.
Attempting to project a nun,ber of potential scenarios for
long-term development Outside the Study Area —including the
effects of LCA contract tetmiftatio--would appear inordinately
rr
speculative at thiJuncture, and beyond the purview of this
s
document. I would further note that termination of an LOA
contract doer, not, by itself, qualify the land for development.
A variety of other environmental and planning constraints must be
resolved before development can proceed.
C-2: Paragraphs on page 22 of DETR do not appear to belong in
the subsection "Safety Element --Fire protection."
R-21, These paragraphs where intended as a summary conclusion
about existing general constraints in the study Area, ntludl,. ng
the potential for development of lands now under LCA contracts at
greater densities that currently permitted. This latter issue is
noted, though not pursued since future development patterns
remain problematic. The subheading "Summary" has been added to
the UIR text.
C�3: Expected 'PrOJe:t traffic is significant, rather than
iftsjgntficanti since traffic will contribute to a reduction in
LOS oil S11 32 toward Chicoi (Page 24 of oj:iginal DEIR)
3, rtaitily reduce the LOS
. The generation of 1�070 ADT would cp
on sR 82 by a marginal increment. This Volume alone would not,
however, result in the equivalent reduction Of one full LOS
category, impacts would be adverse; but insignificant. As Mr.
Lum states in Ills correspondence to YOU (,i0nudrY M 1984): i i Th IB
traffic ItAP9cts oft Route 32 -resulting from the construction Of
101 dwelling units in the project area will be adverse but riot of
major consequences'
il
Cumulative impacts have been revised to a "significAnO
rAuteritination and discussed In this context in the appropriate
section of the milki
2
a-4: The DEIR presents no documented traffic analyi.Ais for
concluding that project area traffic generation will
insignificantly impa..,t circulation in the sasstern Chico urban:
area ... The project's cumulative impacts In the year 2000 could be
ortions of the Chico area. e 24
significant in the eastern p
of original DEiR)
R-4: This comment raises two issues: project traff ,c, impacts
and cumulative traffic impacts on circulation in ths) eastern
areas of Chico. Our response to the first issue is peeoented in
R-3 of this correspondence. The response to the second issue is
more involved. As noted, the determination of cumulative impacts
has been revised to "significant." However, cumulative
project impacts --drainage,, traffic, noise, habitat reduction,
Your etc. --have not been determined as siginifi ant. Yo means nour referencne
to the "project's cumul.7t'.ive impacts" p The revised IR
Y^roject trat°fic combined with project traffic.
notes that by the year 2000 projected ADT on SR 32 between Bruce
Road and SR 99 will range rrom 16,700-10,10.0 ADT. Project
traffic (1,070 ADT) would account for 6%-11% of this cumulative
ADT.
C--5: Reduced sight distance at the proposed public road
approaches indicates that the recalculations for road capacities
a LOS "B" and LOS "C" may be too high, resulting in conservative
projections of project area and cumulative traffic impacts
(Page 25 of original DEIR)
R"5 -.comment noted. No revision to DEER made. The LAS for
specific sections and intersections of SR 32 will of course vary
over the route between Chico and Forest Ranch.clt.
Nevertheless,
Colt
cans accepts the validity of calculating a single (average)
LOS for the entire route between these two destinations.
c-6 The 08TR should pt6vi,1e an analysis before making the
I
conclusion in paragraph 6, page 25.
The Dtt'R is adequate here, since sight distance, shoulder
width, grades and lane widths are all adduced as factors that
lead to the conclusion that traffic conditions are generally
safe. rL'IR revised to read; The above conditions would
assimilate project traffic without significantly decreasing
traffic safety over most of the route between Chico and sorest
Randh."
ora rh lis 7 and ii, page 25: note foregoing
O -7t Regarding paragraphs
g p standards and erosion and
discussion and comments to
ncernf.ng road st°
ensuing mitigations.
R -7t paragralhs 7 and S retainediAdjit-,ional paragraph added to
reflect stated concerns in comme
hto
3
C-8: Traffic and circulation impacts will be significant and
without adequate mitigations; impacts will adversely atfoct both
project area and cumulative traffic and circulation conditions.
Delete from Sectica "Effects Determined Not 'To Be Sig nt fi cant."
(Pages 31-32 of original DEIR)
R-8-. Original determination of insignificatce for project
traffic retained in this section. (See R-3 In this
correspondence for rationale.) Cumulative impacts, as noted in
R-3 have been z�vised to a "significant" determination.
C-9: Cumulative impacts will be significant and should be
described as such. Additional mitigations are necessary ;to
reduce the adversity of these cumulative impacts. (Vages 34-35
of original DEIR)
R-91 We consider this aspect of the traffic analysis the most
importantrevision to the DEIR (notwithstanding teVisiori of LOS
calculations). Mitigations, have been added to the Cumulative
Impacts 'section in the revised DEIR.
C-10: Cumulative impacts are significant. This determination
should be reflected in the DEM. Appropriate mitigations should
address cumulative impacts. (Pages 34-35 of original IMR)
I
R—J.G: Comment noted. Suggested revisions incorporated into
revised DEIR, (See also, Responses 3, 4 and 6 in this
correspondence.)
0-11.1 Traffic analysis cited on page 35, paragraph 4, does not
appc.ar in the D2,tk'6 Appendix C.
R-11-. Cited traffic analyses were a reference to attached
Cumulative Impact Studies in Appendix 0 only. Cumulative impacts
section of original DEIR has been revised, including
clarification of this point,
' lease
,P - note that two appendices) "Correspondence Received on
MIX" (Appendix J) and "Summary of Comments Received on DEIR and
Responses" (Appendix K) have been added to the DtMi Appendix t,
"Caltrans Correspondence and Schematics)" includes only that
correspondence received from CdltrAn8 prior to or during the
preparation of the TAMo
if you have further questions, or requite additional
informatiun$ please contact out office.
4
Respectfully,
William Ra, Sand,4
Consul.tirm Associate
encls
r
' h
OF NATURAL W E AGTlI At~►q d C, AUTS
L�
PLANNI NC COMMISSION
I COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - 0RrJVIL'LE, CALIF0 NlA 95965
January 27, 1981 PHONE., 514.9601
.Earl. D. Felson and Assoc.
500 Wall Street
Chico, CA 95926
RE Draft EZR for ,Public Road Api)raaches to State Highway 32/
Staff Report ,and. Recommondat'i.01t5
Dear Earl.,
Attached is the Planning Dcpar'tmernt's reviei>' O,r the above
draft RIR (dBIR) as related to traffic, Circulation. and
directly related impacts. This re�vleI4 h:�s identified a
number or Si
REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PUBLIC ROAD APPROACHES TO STATE H1011WAY 1
STAFF REPORT W RECOMMEND TTONfi
BOW County Planning Department
January 3, 1984
This staFF report will review the drift Ervirommerrtal Impact
Report (dETR) for Public Road A pact
tate
PleP�ared for the Butte County Planning Deportment Hfghay� 12
Associates in October, 1983, � ,� by EDN and
�aF the dE>R+,< r "+ This re ort is compI feel to analysis
paragraphs t;, anti sections on �traFFic, circul tion
Viand directly related impacts° This r°epor"t will recommend that
ct�rtaitr ��hanc�es he incorporated in the Final BIR.
W&Vround and Organization of the keport
The dFIF? rr>>osp, ,.,
i F to addre s impacts to the State Route 32
corridor sand an e$vimlved 1,543 acres or land that could occur If
the State and County aplarov� three public road ai�i>'`ot,��.hes to
f�`outo 32. This pro j e( i s l onyx three
publ c r road
Try c
northeast OF the J un�s .a oF� C"d 1PI �,2 y 5 to O Milos
Chico and Is Forecasted by the AIR totConsist o90107 dwin ielling o
units at Pull build -out. Th,�,re areapproximately 15 existing
�
dwelling units i n the dEq q Prproject arena_.
This report is
highway orOani2einto teA) A Sumn)ary ofi�:d
ati've Parts,
ts, inclrding:3) A ru►nulsties and reco,m ,•Jatiolm act analysis Of traffic conditions along
g
the 32 corridor fromChiceincludus a r Forest Pinch area, Thi -
capacity
anal-wi Por the cor. pidor.,.
Vii) A C;ji:�cussf of aAd r"ecommF'trkiRWinnw•�
�:6va ahanq s OF the dEIR's text. `�r 'y�`' i Fi�� 1a�i�wr "fie Or
A° "►,,, at,,r or d Elp r;ir:ui. tion xssu °;; pan°;l �er gar me►i,+,titins
t�''yF4l� iWQr? 1 am major issues
Manzi r"r:"Oonrt.aOn' contained in
rhe doaq, AnIly;ts op poute ?21s
t°ANY . !CW; rore trofftColUPttw,W011�,�ap;ty i:Misleading isleadin�iwayVa��tM��a acceptable under
Y Planning quidsline , TrafficcapacityFair arerecal ited in Part C below, and Should be Intluded
!
I
e
i it the rJ[^fP
rhe prat>joe.t; trill acid to c"ulrltive irriplcts alorgj the Route 32
ioflt,�rrt' and n the eastern POrbions of the Chico s-
1, re of
T1t prc►jtdr.t s urr�ralative impacts aro thoroPore
s i coni F 1 c ant incl shOUl d be descri beta as such !'I the dEIR. The
MR shoal d use the anal yS1 5 and Pi nd 1 rigs i it Pil,rq B �S 1 is bas i's For ev�t l r.i�nti ny and mi bi �1a'ti ncl, these cunrul I tf ve i mpaci;s;
TisaFPi c and c rculati on 1IPPaCts are descri bed as "mi Iii Mal" and
i nsi 9n t Hr.ant . throucllto�lt the MR, This report's analysis shUws
.that` traFfi c and c 1,cul at1on impact will be si 's F1 aI ys .
P.tri culartlY th+ tar.Jmu'l-,a'tive imuaCts, as described above.'
1:,ar i;r I.;t?1 orvf Provi des dotal 1 ed
and r"-chrl"rt11diatr•QnS paT`�tc11 ��y..plrac�r�r1)h responsestC� t•hz 3i�):R:
B Cumu1 a t i V impact Anal y 15 OF Tri FFi c Cond1 tiorrs : l oriel the
Route :i2 Corridor From Chico to the Forest Ranch Area
StalF's review oP the d E I R I s crlrnu cative tr�Ffit rnpar t anlyais
found major prohl tarrr5 with thu prep, t�er•'s assttmpti tads,
ca 1: 1'i catiOWS and Gond usi orrs, Fol 1 owi nq cumrJl aj,i ve impact
art,�l y�! s wi 1 Ttl-:
1 illustrate these problems and _propose a c r�r r�ecEt=d
tr��, F f i s „,.,art' anal ysi s, Speyc i'FI c rumul ati ve i enpact text churl
aa'e �a1 so i rrci !tiled i n part` C, below. des
1, General Statem-:ait or Problem
The CIEIKI 1t
Understated the sLtr;iofFe(, ,s oil �ths t at c�volurije ca pari by arty
ip toned sand etntiripalre,d develo mer,t aIon9ythe ccuttridor �tuThe L'Y
lR Ai)pt-nd1x F' Tr, t fic An�l!ysis tyar�putatioils, should b
ire.�a I t tr r a tett regartl7 rr1 its service v 1 tlriles (level OF service) Forti
a.nti�l firr`;r patar:l peal, h6Ur� tP0ff % Vol ume$, A new service volume wi 11
r
t the t1ext of the MR sand 'a numt)er of °onclusioils regardiing
tJ a i• Fi c impacts, i rrt;1 11di nt1 cumlll at i ve i mpat"~t -� and proposed
trrti+'patit�rr,
Goracl ty Arral y ,i
The � LIR Yri'a$,es that l.hr� tle�'_,i �Jn c: ;1 5,yr i ty tit` r' ► �� r i
AD!�iV to r t} Its' 3A, i S 1a Cts
t,ta ��t;. l "E'"" i , s, clew Cit
Y trai"Ficj Phis rs rnisitralinyl, in th,t a�
1 �I '1 ht��,trl y vrrl tlrac� �'or whl °Fr Ole roe dway has Imen
d�;�,i ned arrf� odrlich willr �-
r �u1t 91Vn..n level OF Service (LOS).
ii tr tl A 0 T P i r W� w
of utt?'�, tl r r�o�old r1 a'k1Y tAi:tw�ta th�� thtr rr:�bi cal 1 irlr� t
.,1�ACi I-y� Ho«�v'fa; i t i s within t e, l
i>rostY f0 kcautt. 3`1 betw,itv�rrtChito n e r' ,+ n of
1;<�, Crtltl ACri wi t l.t�w 11 ,r rr �, ,, and �or�ra.,t �:�trlxMkl to t.�tr"r'y
(r►r F ) rlorI n�j p he) ,
vt,5kl?!e?, Would e',Ilj o IJrrs1'ar7lt r I +:t l° Ir',ar 4rG!�h tr�ahh"Ir
of rrr+arri��rll• �r t, r� � , I �o,�l a with thr� 1 i ��t�l �rhto.;�.
y t rat. Cle t'lYt this. V ,.;tt url�atct.pt�,blr highway
r
C.+l Ann If ng c:ri terij,
Append! x p Frsorn tfje draft Transpk)rtati do
Fl rtl�nt ciw+s� ribi ncr ' lr�7ve15 !�F st.rvi!'e' 1 foo d or) thrr Fol lo'nr
p�tcle J
(ExhIb t A),
F h a ClEl'Is Appendix F shows a service volr:rmre calrulal:io
ADD at LOS "Bit. This calrul��fion is in�.or`r�ct r n OF 8,%12
y a riumber O
Firs#:, the term ��at6r,vil�e vol umr I �.
t,apac;i ty planrra l ly5" s � � ��' "filled i rt this Ili rfhttay
pass p V " 7 C ) the m�tx i Unum ntimd7er Of veh i � i r , that carr
cti ven se-- �i Orr of roadway %ri one hour at w7 r
level of fier`vi re, 1 ,I el i pied
conrlit7ons on a, high' aylintterrnsFo trav rpt,. to �,d.rmi1) l.r ,Epic
24-hour i ncr`cmen is i n the Ate - 11 Y trhrrf C i r, The
rt i4 the hourly di t+� could rase From C. (7S ��All to l05
level y s"rt Ution of the ADT which (I,, tr!1,rrinc�s the
I af: service
the p,23k hour bei ny t:h�w cri ti r"It I l:ml n ,
Se -condi nrrp�ty� n or, r;� is equal to 2()0(,) Period,
1,, t the? cal cul at10 n h,,. not J, 555, By usi nit
b 55n;u1 ti p1 rwd raa�C tiri dttt incl tr��� raEt o
factors into the 'eqUatian twine.
Th i
rd, in detPrmd n i rich ar7 aver cle (Jti 1 y tt`"z F F i vu d Orme
rr�,istirt;� allir�td;iatt hay alsr, mistak:k'niy mraltiplieci the j,
actual 'p��tFt hotrrl. traFfic fa 7
�' Y tial hours. .ul ti ri5
a!�tuz� l p a�yk hour tr`r,F f�i c vol tan s never OccurOb heal isa t c t n that
accepted standard i n hi ghw:;ry ��tpar� i tY 11 ann ng i s t m Y The
'petty harrrly tFf , bcrkh dirrr;�tan ultipdy
of Ai1T, unl Yss Irettz.+r peel; hOU'll traff r:r�data eor,xists '0 12 Percent
Ga I tr�tny traFFi c c0t)nfS �alortrt they r,orri�lor w � p r r_ertt
hour` tr`aFpi(� volurn � A review OF
u art 1G-1ir a; i11 show that paF
i t rr�-a be more
wi th rtrri�a1 c- 17%+
nq ih.it�ac�tr r i,Which (ci'tc d bThr expected
t rr��y Lye rear alalr`opr`i a tf to use , r reFor�e,
ca'I ci�r l It i l�rt, The ensr.ri ng rtnO I U 6 15 hwws i n the capacity
"pp't` arh by �. ti 1 i z n�f a + sis wi 1 1 tai: t, a mar`fw cort5,e1`v�at Ve
analysi*Would assrrMO that Peak�hotrrtrapF��' , 'q 'worst rrasr~'
_,,st of the Chico urban arr,�al trm�s sd i ghtl y
xretl 15 of ADT ,
A ndi x F shOL11
r-,�1cu10� e the both t,r,'j 'r e nr o f ai daa5e�i anhp�J e c d 'rvi r,":�„ Vol Um s
condi ti cns, ,w R� for
L0SS Et is considered !� pk:�k hr+rrrly trafpic
While LOS w„ desir 7h1 pl�arrnin level
t i sr7rtsi daredr:.r?.s,L"� "+ ,t ,
erlViI''otimeitFII Or, site cert ►fi`a1rtt 1 r � en fl caI
1err+ rt t, pot i�;y 4 1.2, page 5 dt,aQ Tr`r�rtsport�at10m
tr`��r,, For r`rar`, 1 arta, �d dpi Ch'A p1
t j ). Thpa st�irp:l r'r1s 1lrr„ «r;rOptable.
l`he f'0 1
she r''n"1 a Aii `njj',� Flatior,s sirrarale► rf,l,1p tkri ltrrrrttly
41i,th 1;` , f)rrr"r hl u , b,,th d i
Fo,, 0!vel eap �rr'v ,, ,1
W wo. Hifi
, a n r �% 1 •: � t•J 1
n _.
LOVLIS of Sorvice
- �
ffl'I'MI
'�w.....�M.w;..n,a.wa,,.,,g,.+.w.rw....,.w...�n. �............
'1'110 level -of -service, COI.c:fiI)t is used to do c
bo,twele?i1 ,a highw*.ly's tra fi.0 volume and capjci` ,t:lla 7�'lflierefore
atxd, tiJczeCiz•o,
is an cx �•,�)nely ti;,,ful tool in h'. llighway z)l,anl;.in . Tile maaitaurt
traffic volume that cWl be c4 cried at any selected ].Qv.l of
seyvicO is rt.'.f-erred to as the "seritice TIRe IlighYav Ca)ac1ty il:nual describes xcvUllttttti:ir
fortat
level.
t]gli for 51\ ILvEla C:frue tno atili Condi
.-
`ewc
rcango fro'n g1'••,?e j.zjojq to
forced flow trrlffic con�I* zon, (l)
Level Of Serlricet strict l d Pirie � �.. ry �
y d, �Ulic :� to a sG cx.orR of
rtta(l'ray of sig niy canis lel,igtlt. A service levelt
1 •
the �ra,ffic VOltilm-' level relates to reasonable �''t>xibes Mata
comfort, c"olivemettce, ec011orly, and
'�sa�speed,
aro utiliZed in Tablea tYFve sovietlevels
' a forced l lylt,E�ccci'19 100 Percent ok a highway's capacity t.ed-
aa
not i.ttclttcjed.
The Hit Qhway Capac:°.tyw ;rte � si1 levels u . SCz•v'ice in tire:
f011 11..Fig Inanller (2)
LOV''l Of' A dcscrit)E�, a co.tctxt ian a
it ix" �:s ail(` >1E;il sg)ae(ls. Frca flat,, tris+� low
�xc'1ECic C1 iRsity is lots, with sj,7�^.cyd—'
cr;ltsdllad by driver desire,, -,ped lil:l'ts aJ1d Physical
conditions. There as litta4' or'na `rc)stItsj ll hysical xo4z1y.
(IM! to thePresence r ij� milleuve-r l.b.i.lity
pT' nc: Ort Gt,l r v?:'tlicles, and C rri' ors c,"I I.-U-Iintait1
their clesired spe"'Cls 1"r.ith little err no delay.
I;at}ol o f5�` YyxcFy 13 is in a �
� rJl1 of stable ! .I:ow
�I)t�4?1ilnLfl„ O be I'c^'.5f1'1C'j;'C1 SJI'1rt,".it'i1 i7y tl bj � i
with r11i
'r2X c C17tttt L 4� t7i1a
1.'I'7.1t'< •S t`si to I have T",01sst)n'1i)IO kr' '-''edolj to Se]t;Clr thrix• spoods.
vad l-'Lne 04, al)^ra tio;t. Reductions j;a s`a:� `
jr J10 unX"eas-oimble,
vith 'a low prol)ahi,;l.i'ty Of trrlftx,t,Mott t)u cit
n e
�oecl, lli;;hwlsr val.tt? u) of this 1.t�v,•:1. Of
t: �`' 11�i:� I7. „J7 4tSSi1clilia: ii. W1 til .�+ex V: rt vc):i1lTf?" tl C'Ci in1t:
r, l yiR �1" rural h� �111.t zws„
.lr�: 1+t•a.I. +� f �e;i:lt�� is f; �.fi � 1
alr`i" t''1t1�11 "j' 't� r y , lal:lu S
tr J c �) 7 % t E'v I l,�r�w GlC3 s � Y` cOtt t'17 �__� Q,� by OIL, hi rhe -r
Il�`gy
r) `Y c R�) µcit} i�`t+�:):l, Ilig; R1,�1}r l�aao�t� t l; c)4?t`�l 8 )O
G
s f .i �t !
( rt. s7,„tt cttt;l.l .1c,tl�Et��y f r1ca.rlcw tat i.ollt�i t:mac:tjt'rI;
colYtac l o 196
(2)' l t)."tri,
SNI
0
,•t;stric ed III tl.t i�c f a°ooEla�11
rroliir�ttg. r.io5% pf the dxvars ars- ox p;tss. !�,
to ,>+','Ier l�:a.x own speed, change lanes, ,
eed l , still 01,17.1Led, 1'ri'GYl sc:xv:r cr;
5at�i.i,fxctory opol`;tt Ilp ap.
r �+ Perhaps $Ll.Ltcl'olL ;�o� Ur�ac'itl d0:.il�;lk ja7::Gt 1C�tS,
1,oltim s p
`re 1) approaches tinstatale flol'r�ablhfC;ctieclKytaor�7or
Level of 5ei'va
,) n , naintaine d t11ou 11 cons L
ata_t1�.r Slee GO.1ditollS, PlLlCttlt7r�j� iIl vo�1I1t1L+ tltltl
( ai�Tl
changes in op � Ona t0 Holy T�tay Cc?Ll5o sLlbstallt.a al, l�'�aps III
Icti
om
o an
operating, pe;ccls. Drivers have �b���co;�(lit�onstcall ll10 tolora ed
comfort and c0en"nloTiGe 13 G; 10WP
for short Perlods of ,time
• Speed a1011('' , 'but
Level Of 5orvice E cannot be descxi aed by p. A
---r--,.' even IoWer opexats�a � ST)r3�4� i �:hnn in
Y:epxesent operations � �
tltia ay.
o.
Lnot
cve7 D y wit"' volumes at or near he caP�l3 ay scit �tln+at'rt�c ��ei neighbor
-
Level
r speeds axe tvs lin,s y a alld `there may be SLOP -Pages of
}food of 30 milli. Flow is unstable,
riori ntnry dura tort.
ti r t t9 tjx'4 LOU at 101,1 speeds y
Seri; --:--below F d--oscxibGsu;uect l
,� ` ��e conditions i.tsx�nl'.;,
Level. of fThe
a G] OW Gapes Gi t) ��
` backing k fxot:l Tv 'C1�.G't`lotl
lrti;�r%a vo um.s �.re v- i�l�.cles
result frori queues o� - . 1+ be
The Sec t:ioil uncles s � cle f �� � O
clol•rnstreai;t� tll� peak ho�,tx, 5po�:ds are x'educe�
arts ox all of l
ax'oa during-, P w . ac►ps n,Ly occur for shore ca x• long lyEx o y
substantially and s tO ��
of time bocat�se n
do�anstrea;a CoRg4stion•