HomeMy WebLinkAbout83-30 ORDINANCE 13 OF 16•
tiro =
dfr,ection (c�,9b)(c1, 1) 455.6 vehicles pw'r holar) loth
If the
volumes Peak hourly trIhtie valurrL is 161, c,i ttre 24-hct�r
then the ADI is 466.6 X 6.25 = 2, 916 ADT.
I1: t,1e
peek horar1 y traf f i r. vol ume i s 12" r� the
�o'I tune, 24•-ht�ttr
then the AD)* is 466.6 X 8.33 3t883 ADT.
It the peal' hourly trafFic vel urge is 10% cel` the 24-hoor
volume, tr
r then the ADT is 4b6.,. 5. X. 10, 0 4, 666 ADT,.
1 or..L.evel o Servi ct,. il..CI+.11
where v/c=0, S% ( assumi nr1 60 Mph " t:ri cted average high,4ay
sPee;1)1 all other PactOrs same as LOS 'lot,
Std = 2000(0, 56) (0, 96) 0. ) O70. g Vehi cl es ijr- hour, , bo;�h
lls7ncy the same percentaq s of hourly to 24-hour trap i .
volumes as sho-vn above for LOS IT F
12%; and 10% of 24-hour vf�lum(�s war►lcfhGe Aeo DT
7,258
i6�,
7, 258 ACEI`) and 8,709 ADT, respPcti vel y,
Level of Servile "DIt is consideree( urracc;,sCltat�l�,
Thf,rel ore the rn"Xi mtrm deli rabl f� traffic vol uir;e
ot• Chico too the rOrf,,st Ploch arra i►, the dErlt � �n potrte 32 mast
between t't'il hand 87o. -; vehi cl r�s per hour, rJe en�ii p;�t area uncle
Lpa or r, is rItIIizeu, As can he p 7 On whether
oercent,,,5e of �'�t�i in the seen, the e;timato of the
aLo,,t,� calul;t�rr.;,, - pzt�k hour is a critical elemtint iri the
It
T4 should be noted tha► poute '12 'rr
Oars`, tt o Fore ,f: , ) �t ea5 of thrw rJESl7 Project
Forest- I~ r h r illd be con
�r �l ret1 a:; mrtfrnt�ri not►s i n a
tr: i c capaci t r'
I y Ic).►1`, sir n, Surh a calcl,latic�rr shows the
fir h; y' traftit� C,1:1+an ity `�ery c 1p ,
v�hicIes ''1-r is,;�1.1r' at L �,; "F'n s rr "w 1,v�"l {.1, b %J 4 ar7d 608 C1
� �1Y Il t• 11 c,xp�tl i iy a rrµ t-hl� CHri Vic; �Phf�rl~ �f" i tve)i y, !'r e:sent LOS
i tr4<� l a rr� Wn1 P f r i t +-` r, e wherir t
J1 t ..� . 706. 6 aritl 1 1 b5 v�.�h f'o:t1t
►'.�,spectivelyt A LOS "0" 0n �°f1t1�� ;i�' i6 {:h�� o `;cle� (tor hour,
�tou I d equtj l 1 e:141i , 1 vehicles I' 'r" hf7rrl� a Iter n t,hi co spht�re
volun,eyX9 tl7:r{; f110 pwstl; hour wo,uId r'r�I.yk�F��ent lfr��cr r�th14, 661 ADI')
24-hour
4
►
11; 1 V ea T r, a r
� IJAP�Ict Analysis
Oil inFormc,,tjo,)
Rumor,
u ino I I vp C. 1, 1 F P j Provided by thO dEIR
C C vol 1.1 m e 's j the pollowing
Coll d Occur when ROU( -.its 3,?
0 p m e 1, t's, i ch r. U t, r e n L I y e X i St 0 1, Corridor
C01017I eted, T h e t ra t.' F i C r) il e inti t 1 C d
trip VO I Limes are b e c o m e
q�el)ellatjorl facto h cl c iiq L, I Ower
doe -1I than i dFIR (SevPn tpi��,
f oi nq Unit 1 tlsteldrof tell per, day per
I I Owi 119 tab e: tri Per day) as sho,,111 in the
Table I
CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC VOLMES BY AREA/PROJECT OAj ROUI,C 32 CORRIDOR
a � f ve Peo k
Ail ea /P r oj e c OWL' I n g PS Hour TOW&rds Chico
t
IL
rorei�,
Rant: Pt U M i ts Qeryerated 12
OP ADT/AD'T
Forest Ranch (ilddibloll11) 264 21200
14 Mile Hotise 100 (1 700
Parr -Terri 11 21 147 848 2 goo
dEIP Project 12 84 366 3,' 647
other Potential lots 107 749 376 3, 1,-11
Isom-Hall� Not Iflcltidyd in tot 1 466 / 3; 680
Bidwell Heights 110 776 S
Carryon Park' 385 2695 558' / ?j6so
109 63' 8 e. I / 7,3-115
E S t f M a t e d t' u mbe r 973 / 8, loa
(2) BLIsed oil (-�,stiyyyabeof existing developable Parcels.
MaYt 1982 in Appendix 13 or Can YOn Park Estat.s ESR,
Table I indjcatrail that thf, sum or t,, ,s
gellercited by P:"ojp-c�s as
t'h"n 'qO'!Id tie 8 10r�, ADT. If the pea�,
daily I - h
�4efletlated I our Vol
�rip-,,, Wle 5eneratec, - Lime Is 12% of, the
Peik, hour volume'. OF more than 8,70,9 Peak hotly, Would be 973, A
Routp a2ls level OF vt�hfdes WOhld reduce the
servict�' to the lower, Op
approach �,he I L 0 S C,
S a itt 0 S �") a y u 1) P y' LOSNenand
a f y
thr break -.ire n� 60 t 1 tu1t,{
hs h I appi,oxime(J, 0 ighwly PtOd it' Exhibit
-1 is Pr
Purposel�t�. I a tin I )l,j
'ra wi L, 1 11 el
to 4q(I . � h,�
lots, whirfl a((;" ln(jejs
der Apotr�rlLrtil de 40C,
.siqn.
""'5 and
adflafonj�j po t. n 110t
n [lr 61t l l t utm;.yri Act u e
and .1,7,� ve�jicj,�)s p1zy, wi�re �o dw;ifloP b �o
peak h��ur wOUld be ild,31"d L -i:1 y) moi.
Lotal�, �:,,howm in I, rp, cumlllaHve
hour �r,offjt: nq in n ee�Hrq
, ClLod poute peak.
ronge of just Cast of* the C o u r, Im
9 0 5 1 V,� h 'i r -" I h f h n area try the
�rapf`fc condit�jojj$, ()n alt; Ii� , i I y impact
OF Ef�Q�
c o o 9 e'.*, 0 deg M. P. M
If A trip ryerrtrati0- oac};or
of ten (10) trips per dwol l i n� unit
wfrr� K li O in I -00Ve analysist OHfiG volume- on 'Route 12
5
J" west of Canto,, park Estates would be 1n the virinity or
11 5r,4u air r. It the 400 to40 addi ti ona
poinsi bl e outside or the prO j ect/�arens showna n Tab l o rirl,'►'wire to
develop then traffic.- volr.rmes ust west of Canyon Park t'�,l;ates
could be i n the range of 1:5, 5Uj st West o ACC
4. Cumula=tive Impacts on Chico Urban Area T'rafpIr
Assuming that the crrrrulativt, traffic by Table
Impacts>arts incii�,tt.r�rTable1 r, occur by the year 2000peak hour traffic volurns.; ort the Route
32 corridor i n the southeast Chico urban area will l u
approximately 600+ (5,000+ ADT) greater than Para+:, 5
Chico Urban Art, Transporwtation. Study (CATS), (4) r�tFMd by the
The Chico Urban Area Transportation Study, the rr� ,cal t of a
comprehensive urban area traffic model ani street and highway
rinancing plan was released November, 1942. C
ATS indicai
fOrecanted Year 2000 growth In the urban area's southr~astes thaE
ClUldrant wi 1 lresult in significant traffic growth On Route 3'2
west OF Bruce Road. CATS forecasts indicate that two7l ane Route
2 will be at: or near capacity in the vicinity west of Erne Roan
and assumes no traffic impacts from new development e
url)a,n area, The addition of 600 e ,east he the
southeast Chico -- Route 32 corridor would acceptable
to the
highway capality t�:rnd require tat � �� yd
h Route 32 wnst of Bare, Road be
exp; Tided to tt fr�ur-1 �,ne highway earlier than anti ci paced by CAT54
This aci li tiotnzl trafficwould also aff0cf, Other Chico area roads
in ways unanticipated by GATS and create the 'poo notal For
fi Wane i n,a i rte qui ti es in CATS street and highway Financing plan,,
(5)
If Route 32 developments rccor at a greater level shownby Ta1e 1, ht than
}an what
further, Would declihe evenas� e
for even earlier Increased Ili ghway
caPSci
ted (�'r'rir�r,n�lirt� Chico area streets would also
5: Concl u" ons to Cumulative NP0 Anol ysi s
Exhibit G 'i l l u`�tr trx' the rel
rle a , �� Rtir;inshil�,�; bet�wv�r�n k�rri lel- ,.
v l ol.ri�ey's along the R�•�010 Q corridor oPe o�
tr�"I vr.�ltr�;,�:; �s. Santa pot:r.�nt.ial prrak� hour
NO comi�ar �d with hi ginw;,ay C`) Ir:4 ty rat 1-0.' "B" and
Exhibit 8 Shows that year 2000 build cut of dFwvel pm nts listed
In rabl e will cause Future Route 3d Cap�aci ty p�rr�ial F rrr arn�.J
ensOi ng ci:�rn�tr;��t-+�d trwaf'ri c conditions rrrnrrr the Eti d�ta�w.l l hlei its
(Santos Way) project to wAst OP Canyon Park
w' � �.�t�rtras, Ratr�� ;�'
capacity would be �adequ he from approximately n mile west o f
Cy
b
0EXHIBIT
CUMULAT�/E TRAFFIC fiNiPA►CTS ALOiV 4
�R
STATE ROUTE 32 CORRIDOR R
TOWARDS CHICQ
A y
PEAK HOURLY VOLUME 220 A4MR
264
MOUNTAINOUS TERRAIN;4
LEVEL OF SERVICE
B - —3744
C- X698'.9
h r
MOUNTAINOUS
TERRAIN
ROLLING
TERRAIN ...� t 411
(366)
PARR_ v p
TERRILL
,r•t
ROLLING TERRAIN E I R
LEVEL OF SERVICE'
13- —466.6
C -G70 9 AREA
(466)
}
O
0 � e
ISOM-HALL
atawEt t4.
( 558,)—
(88ti� .
AREA OF CAP,
Gomm PROBLEMS
RESULTING
FROM CUMULATIVE
TRAFFIC IMPACTS
2050 ACT 2200 ADT 1981/1982 ADT
(500) — CUMULATIVE. TRAFFIC'�
ROLLIN!'S TERRAtN; ` VOLUME (SEE TAB! E 1))
LEVEL TERR;ilk
(PEAK HOUR)
UR)
AREA BNOY_
-PROJECT
i - AG'. -RESIDENTIAL LAND
e � X
_„oa , USE DES1GNAI JON
V1, V, LEVEL Ttn.. IN
u+� LEVEL OF SERVICE �`
G 8.- ^-7065
C 9165-8 0 I 2
0 -
SCALE IN MILES
4
3 Ily (I h Park Estabes to Bruce' Road 1.1 n der the t ra f F i c ( o 11 (1 j t i o ns
rt -,q e n ted in 'fatale 1, As me n b i o n e (1, Route 32 west or 0 r LI Ce Road
won I d need addi ti oral ca,aci ty because of traff i c or -I tj I nabi rig
rrom Route 32 f oobhi I I development. It should b(:,,, not-od that this
is a conservative cumulCiti ve impact assessment. Roul�i,-- 32 corridor
dovQloprn.enb not included i�, Table I will add to the ,ilgni Ficanee
of corridor and Chico urban area trafFic impacts.
IF the 'no project' alternative to the dEIR projHcb were to
occur, cumin atiVe traffic impacts Could be reduced Sl Ightly.
However, Unaccepbable traffic volume and conqe�tion would still
occur on Route 32 in the vicinity of the Bidwell lloi�)hts and
Canyon Park Estates projects, and in the Chico a�,e�a, as described
above. 'no project'' al L,,rnativt,:, would redreduce.,comulative
t r a F f I c VOILIMeS *frown in Table 1 by 644 ADT thEIT-oby reducing the
cumulative total From 81108 ADT to 7,464 ADT. This: would amount
to a reduction of about 77 vehicles during the critical peak hour.
'The dEIR has stated that cumulative traffic impact -.s to the ROLIbe
32 and eastern urban area of Chico would be minimal and
i nsi gni f 1 cant, The above analysis shows that this is not the
case. The need for adeqUate mibigation or those CUMUlative
impacts is obvious �nd clear. 0 b he rw i se, We, wl 11 be f aci ng a
Future of ever-increasing Route 32 corridor congestion and
traf Fi c, and safety hazards
C. Discussion and Recommended dEIR Text Changes
Introduction (Pacjes 3-4)
Page, 1, Paragraph 3 - The dEIR should identify and cite expressed
references to Cal brans documit.-nts and statemetli:s. This is
required of CEQA Guidelines Section 1.61.118.
Envro
, nmen ta I Setting Poges 5-11:a)
P o pj e g, I a .t paragraph T he. r e- 5 h 0 LI I d be d om e n t ,ti on r e q i r d i n
Ooute S design capaci ty, The dEIR's Appendix, r $149gosts a
much lower highway cripacity than stetted on pvl' ,�, J. Based on this
' Of CLIMII]fl-iVel bhO
e 3 analysis I" ty or the
Route 3 2 c r i dear ra 11 c; tt,, F ro m 446, 6 Lo 870. 9 v e i c1 es d LI r I n the
e cl k b,) Ll V a t L 6, v P. 1 6 F S e r v I r.• e (L0 -IS) 11 13" a n d " r, r e s p o c b i vel y n
a rwjp ire, P a ra o ra ph ""I - Th e:9 ba t on, e n t r oq, rd i ng co n r., er 115 of
C a I I. r a n Di tri cls 03 p1 ann o, r ts h o tj I d brs t, e f e., r a� n r. d o 1, e d e ta 11
r c pi r,.i i n9 e,� e c (111 1* e , n -, s, h o ul (I -be (, o n nn t� d i n t h e d E I P,
v i r o -,, r!, n a I I mpi r- b -5 a n d M, i t i �jo on. H i 9 h w a y S2 Corridor'
12- 31
•
Page 12 Para rul�h 7 `- erosion -The � tIR shOtIld ra l"K�11s,rsperhwtit;►t
poterlti al For f ll0si on during Pe�11� r nt.n. y
ej,osi on is 9110ate5t.
P;tge 13, Paragraph 2 The current-tionnto mpr v�trnonf2()T-�faa�ntiiiclr
�11aw, priv l.e rural raacl e�nstr r��} are not rrf �;� trnty st111( INJ
grav61 surfaces Loads of this typeravOl
and will not be mai titai ned by the Caunty. The 20-Faot '`1are
standard may be abl e to reduce or0si Oil i n satnr? fr�rrthi 1 1 ,
but riot i n all areas or cares This is suggested by the
sentence ill
the 1'?�cl�dalh. More to en��ure thatr fic raa��ar<zrt$�.�.l��ar l r�latt�ci
mitiijations are n. r, problem at devr�loprn��nt alan�
erosi on does not becOL.e a p
hi gilw,ay c0rri dor,
Add th-e Following a F to r pjrattrap
h 2;
I`wo recently published, i hed, Cotirrty documents refer to the issue of
road standards and erosion pr-eve,ritie�n.
TiPdraft Trarispartatian
Lle�rrent to the Sutte County Genera l F'l anni
7
implementation measures as described above VrOw {,Iiia draft
rrz�n000010.n Element and Report of the rnh.a`��;�f�{�,� F'or�� t;
Ranch 1' lwing Area Committee,
Page 19 Paragraph 2 - The Paragraph should also mf.nti on the
general results Of the Planning Deparlmont's 19$ i nv��lfit:�ry of
epi sting rural residential parcels �i n foothill l
of BtI" CoUnt Transportation arld nroiint�ain aretas
detiscri brss tfre sum(r aUl is Pttthi i rrentor YCl Sieh briefly
Page 19 Paragraph 4 The SIP should rc=,Fer`en � P ! . ), h
Cal tram's comments, per mentioned CEQA Gr,i Ciel i rigs rrcJ 41 t,t'
i
<,ge 19, Paragraph is - The stateme,, r�Strategy C that the study, An Urb�arr
y gy for CaliFo�nia, is primarily �7pplic�abt�: to urban rattier
lfiUn rural corrnGi e,;, i mi sl eadi ng. Development Thy foll owi n, 'e
ntenceregarcing a Foothill Statogyis
like ,t
.hast, Idilsl8adliig,
Butte County is considered I non-rrletropol �i tan county by the
County's p of Finance (GCr4 This means that by virtue of the
c1 wi fi Fir�rpjr sorerre�rlr nt and fOrIc asked vueure popul atfi�n,
�r, between s rural and metropolitan I urban
coranty. f"he 1"'hict� �hi;,A covers Eluti;e�� County desilpatioj implies tr ;
the area is Cour yeand ao urban or
this Federal
urbanizing region: A similar non-metropol i t;r,n case is found it!
Shrasia county in and Around the Redding area,
The issue i7},+paPlntl y rnQed by the Col trans, fi
comment n p�arigrsph 4 certainly e. Urlalr7 Strategy
,concerns o the Cit , up meri t with regard to the
l �•tr;r1i r,� y of Chico, a edbgdicti on whose- circulation
P ,� will i cert�ai my b�� aFFert��r1 Eay the Cumulative impacts OF
developments along the K� h 32 �:orricror', as shown in Fart � or
Phis r�epnrt. The i,Mments of the City of Chivo ore iFars art
concern s c� cupulsti vr� impacts, (8)
The cited Foothill Ge�c�1c�r5m�n4
in a Final Form Ire; , �lOP Strategy, although not Published
Foothill rjc� , Pres nte°l 0 ncrmber of issue papers on key
veto ri,PQ cooc r.rn which
:~otfi n l
cabls and t5ab)finFo°aztior wh1:h eealchave ;re,r6viewed and r,portt in theRJR (9)
the �PheoLlcars rl oythfll Q5 .ormens on both reflect thq above the tr•bfir and
concr�r�ns,
Elr~i1ierr Ghon 0r (ulanion" to
This sact;iP �i o"Id �r190 na�trw tha`f .t draft
Cranspor t�: ylon 1Itarrent t� vi: ion i`� new uu�'�x1 rgc i°n�l ti a
and hic9hlillht key provision, sand of r',�.. ,�° l.ulllr h.��rrnwys
the envrror�r,�Nnth+l r`E vi1 w of this 'project. , ��t� they may relate to
, ��; Fel Y �'rlf. , ,
in.larrfr clr C"Fel,r Element C�/ F�{.e`��rc�krycHOD Th 0 l
r of x tho Cohamy—F'n,sh Ranat
- 9 w
4
•
P1acininc, Areca GOMMittee prQP"`HN'J Fire pro tee: 1-1 On I'101iCi>; (pages
1,5-2g) l as appl i c:obl e and .as a irri ti 9atr on to prOJ ('-G� i mpa,ct:s.
Parte 22, F'aragrapgh 2 - The dEIR ,howl d analyze L -ho potential
that LOA contract terminations may have on incrcIaai►niJ the number
of parcels, thus dwelling units and traFFi c vol Ume �,' beyond the
impacts of the currently estimated build -out of 107 dwel 1 i ng
unit: in th8 project area. Also, it is noted that this
Paragraph and the suggested analysis is, however, not related to
fire protection and safety, and should be placed i,►nrler the
appro,pt,i ateheadi nJ within the dEIF.
Page 23 last par graph - This paragraph states Ltr tt Route 12 has
an overti 1 l desi get capaci ty of 15 000 ADT, or 625 avr;r Grcle hourly
traffi c i n both Ali recti oil between Chi co and Forest Rant: h, t hi s
i (jtire Wa,a a] o u,erJ on pale 9, last paraclraph. Hnwever, irse �F
this Figure is mi0eadincl, as traFFic voluci;:e at such a design
<�apacity would ca.iss, extreme traFri c conjestion and unacceptab'ie
Levels of Service (LOS), as pointed out in Part O of this report
ArCar�'Ji nei to the rr I Cul ati ons i ►t the dEIR's Appendix F, a LOS
11 B, wIti`rh is a delir�able level For planninri braFFic cosign
capaciti es on the Roijte 32 corri dor, woui�,l ot�cur' wi th much l ower
peak, hour trzafFi c vol um s, This report's cumulative impact
analysis has renal cii l at,ed Appendix F's LOS Cal cul ati ort and
recommends that the neer data replace that currently Found i n th¢
d C IR.
F'agtc 24, Paragraph S ., 4he daf`a from thh ra(.-al citl ated Appendix F
('arYt f; of report ) 5110LlI d be use' i n this pa ityraph,
Page 24, Paragraph 4 - This paragraph Should be rewritten to
en, roinpass the CuMul a ti ve impacts suggested in Fart 8.
The
paragraph's la$; sentence has tie) real ri;Fjaning to the anrflysis, {1s
pre'vi t usl y noted..
5
rCI:l�5eC`ry 24, Paragraph �yra�JrL�p l� 4 - This report's Part B concludes than the
I ,
pt'or'o��' d prof k�ct' S traf F i c impacts ar'' significant , a,' they Wil l
corttri Cute °tai rr✓li►r«ec Route 32 LOQ towards the Chi c;o urlaGtrr art:,
lea9e 24, 1 apt prira�jraplt " The MR pr,�st-nt , no dc�rumented traffic
ai; ly+, 1=car one luding that pr.t� �5rb area traffic gen�d�ration will
i nsi grti i cantly impact Ci rc ul ati r�ri t n thtH eastern Chico urban
t hi s rr pot ' s Peart's t:h�ary thP� pro, eCt's
i v e p ; c t s i n t. h e ;, e , < <? ,v) r t► I d b tW s i rr ►t F i c: rr t i' n t. h
eLr� t�F rn 'r�r'ti oils c�F I:he t;hico ar r���, It �h'oil'd leer noted thole thl•
La� l st,rirly's2, F�iJtl A 71' Fatj�-�(,H on for I,ta: S2 i�� fc�r F►►l l urban
stria tai i l �J l cth�� y tt � Chico
out Wt n
urban Areil po�,aul ati t��ri wc,��l d lti� i n tri. vi ri ri t ty of 170, 000.
PAp e5, P,ar;tigrAph I This dFxR c,houIel tie)(o that 'the c.'h afi. Bukte
Go►,►irty rr~anspOrtiHoil Element has that Caltrans
r on, i r! Nor con.,briir';+•i lint tvl as,�, It b ryc*.i e Pari 7 i ti es rill rloute g42
0
0
between Chico and Fore5b Ranch.
Page 25, Paragraph 2 - Tf sight distance conditiony in the
project area average only 400+ Feet, then the volome/capacity
(0c) ratio usod to recalculate Route 32's LOS (in Part 8, above)
were high. It a sight distance of only 400+ Peet were utilized,
then the vac ratio For LOS W would equal about 0,211 and for
LOS M," about 0, 47; This would result in a proje(,,t area
B"
capacity at LOS " and "C" of 3,266 ADT (.12 X i,W = 392 peak
hour) and 6t091 ADT (.12 X 61091 = 731 peak hour), This would
imply that the recalculations in Part A are high, and therefore
present an additionally conservative projection K project area
and cumulative traffic impacts,
Page 25, Paragraph 6 - The dEIR should provide an analysis before
making this conclusion.
Page 25, Paragraphs 7,8 - Please note the above Mcussion and
comments regarding roAc;i standards and eroYon and 0001i ng
mitigations,
Page 30 Energy Consumption Mitigation - Yhe proposed mitigation
to establish a County operated bus route between Forest Ranch and
Chico is unlikely to occur and should therefore be deleted'.
County policy is to maintain Bylto County Transit's exis.ing
intercity service at Mquake levels, only, This policy is also
supported In the County' draft Transportation Element (Policy
9,1,11 page
EF feats Dotermlond Not To A Significant (Pages 31-12)
This report finds that WPM and circulation impacts will be
significant and without adequate mitigations, will adversely
affect both project are; and cumulative traffic and circulation
conditions. Item 4 - TraVic, should be del abed from this
section and pInced in the MR's SecHon IX or Section X,
depending ori whether adequate mitigations are proposed,
Cumulative Impacts (Pages 34-15)
As shown in Part B of this report,W project will add to
comolativo impacts along IM, Note 32 corridur and in the eastern
portions of but Chico sphere of influence. The project's
cit alahive Impacts are thereFors signiFirant and should be
dencribed as such in the dElk The MIR Would use the analysis
and firdingq in Art I as 00 basis for evaluating and mitigatin,-J
these cumul�ttive impat*ts.
Also, it is noted that the traffic nnalysis cited on Page 35,
lars9raph 4 ooe; not appear in the MR' s Appondix 0,
Alternatives to the Proposed Project (Pagos 35-10)
Q 1t -
yk,
Page ,fir;, No Project; AlternaUive - The discussion shoo ca nota bile
Findi119 of part S which states that if the 'no project"
terntati ve were to occur, cumulative traffic impacts could be
al
reduced sl i Ihtl Y.
Footnc7t+�s;
1. All capacity calculations in this reporE utilize+ methOrls found
i n the Fli yhlaay Captijci ty Manual I Fli sghway Reseorch Board,
5pecia1 Report No. 87, 1955;
2, Di scrissi.on with Bill I -del l a,; Caltrams, rams bi stri cl: 01, 12-30-83,
3, Derived from raata in Appendix 13 of Canyon Park Catat+'s EI'R,
M;.AY, 1982.
4 Caltrans fortis is thzt ACCT in the year 2000 east of El Monte
ill the range of 400 CATS has forecasted 5000 ADT.
Avenue to be
5, Planning Dep rr`trrent memorandum From M. Ra.dabawjh to S.
.0
Streeter, January 2r31 193,11 pti-irles 6-8,
M.
6. Ibid.
Y. l
LI
7; Butt.!. Cot,rnty F'1��nnirrrl Crepwartmen'f, Inventory of Rural
Resi rjenti al Parceli rr Butte county oy Rl anni ng Area,
a
5. See commepts of the City of Chico, Planning {!f fi ce, 12"I--83,
rlhic�; of Pfzatnin and F}r�4ecrch, A4Less incl 1`rar�5orttforl
in the Foothills, draft, Jarrr.Iary 12, icJi?1.
w 12 -
5TAT� 1) CALIrORhIIA•--TRANSP04rATION AG
WW
DEPARTMENT OF �TRANSPOR I A
DISTRWT J
V.O. AOX 911, MARMILLE 95901
Tele:phon0 (916) 741-4543
January 7.0, 1984
TION
1~ir. ivklrk Radugh
Senior Planner
Butte County Planning Caauission,
7 County Center Drive
orovil.l.e, C.A 95965
Dear Mr. Radabaugh
GEORGE DEWAEAAN, Go"moe
r
Pu; Fa Co, Planning Curet.
JAN 2 3 19084
orovilly, California
03 -Public Road.
Arproache.s to State
Highway 32
A review has been of Part D r.. Curmlative Ilrpaat Analysis of: Trc-tffic Cmdi tions
along the Route 32 Corridor :From Chico to the Forest Ranch area, a part of the
Butte County Planning Depar m—tamt's internal. draft review of a drat -t
l nvirolvTtental 7m.raact Re ort on Rabltc Road Approaches -to Stato Rwy. 32 The
rev s-�r was requested -in your letter dated 1/G/84.
file are in agreelrent that: there is an error i17 -1:he calculation of service volLmre
on Rcute. 32 and a mi.sinterpreta.tion of the term "service volurmm" as given ;in
,Ippendix F of the DBTR.
Our ccmr--n+s on. the report by the B`atte County Planning Departmnt are is
follows:
Prmagraph 13:2 - The :statermnt in the Da IR giving t1ie desing capacity ah
tcjr,= of avexage daily tL°afgic is mf.sli�2ading. Design "capacity" is an
haarly voima- for which tfie roadway has been desi0ned �Ahich will result in
a given 1eve1 of service.
n
The suites int that Rcute 32 "could never accci arrxIato atipv iere near 15,000
incorreou. It is �,ri�t n the realm tat po8sibLlity for a b,;o-lane
,�I is
hi.gl,may :l..ilte pcktto 32 bet p -en Chico and Forest Ranch to carry 15;000 Nr,
with L.Q.S. 'B' during the Peak h . OIA ROAte 50 at Echo Suttm�t, a ` tIc-1ano
hiti'mray wnich has grAdi,!anL and a'f t k oE gmatex s�veri.ty Ehan Route 32
is currently carrying an AM in tho rang'; o i' 14,500 to 19,000 du.rirg alit
poalk rronth 'wi.Lli p.-rak hour volutns l.asLin3 i"or 3 hvurs.
The torxt "servi.co Vol:urrca, Ii as de>~inod in the 1905 Yligbway C pacil:y Monual.,
is thio ntt.dtram ri.trrber of vehi,cl.es th:xt wn pzz ss over .a givon sect.ion o:
'r,irl�7tty
in one Hexer aL a sp ui_ a.+ cl lovel, or- 8,_,rV..I.cI_. The Service volLtr�� of
rte 6. 1 oo.l.cr.. laced for IeVZ 02 service '13' ib thy, Peal: hour volume zt that
w G3e c,= . r1 the pea's Tiour vollur n, is 101 of. Otho 24-lawr vol.uur*r
the A,,rv, 1� 46M 1f t1-io pee�, hour vol.umI' is 127a of t is 24 boar
voltam, •ttto ACYT b�=-ncrs 3E',88, 1.f: the pr,-tl Trout to 162, o. the 24-1our
volun:iw, the P= b' -::f ow,, ---a 2916i
+
bir. Mark Radabw~iuc� i
Page ?
JantiLtiry 2.0, 1984
Fran. Table 10.7 in t}je 1965 FIic7l�+rav Cal?acity rlanual, a r0adwzly vrWi an
ave ge higYnay ( design) .;F', --ped Of 60 Mrph at level of sel' vice ' c' , VA 01 60%
of the roaftay sec'cion having a passing sight, distance gr e ZLear Onall 1500',
has a v/c rdtio oi- 0.56. 'Phe service volume at 7a.O.S. 'c', h�t°°��.�t�, is 2000
(.56) (496),(.81)=870.9. I the service volurm of 870.9 renr;esenty a perlk
hour vOIUMe %ghuch is 16% (:),C the ADT, the t1L7.0 becomes 5443.
It is difficult- to determine traffic conditions on a hi_ghr'ay in tette of
average daily traffic. The 24 --hour increments in the ADT can rancje from
L.O.S. ',A' to L.O.S. 'F' It is -the hourly distribution of the AI1'� wi ch
dee ermines the level. of service, the peak hour being the critical time
period.
I Paragraph B.3 - The scam of the trips generated as sllcsan in Table 1 is
51908, If the peak hour %?glume is 12% of the daily generated trips, the
generated pea% hour is-12x59OS--709. The ADT in the year 7000 east of Ul
Monte Avenue is estimated to "be in the range of 4000. if the peak hoar
volurre is 14% of the POT on Route 32in -the year 2000, the peak hc.ur
.14x4000=560. If the time of the peak hour on Route 32 coincides vitas the
tiTM of the peak hoar genemted by the proposed develcmtrents, the total
p- rak sour demand b?c:tes 560.1-70°=1269. The capacity of Route 32 from
Chico to Forest Ranch has been calculated to be 1555. The v/c ratio in. the
year 2000 is then 12691i555-0.82. ,A.ccOrd ing to Figure 1.0;. 2b in the 1965
H-C.M , the v/c ratii,) is Zt the uPr 3 iatti.t of LiO.S. ' ;'
Using the ''w-orst" conditions stated above, the trips generated given in
TZ17le 1 will result in a rrFjar adverse impact on Route 32. As can be seen,
th- estixmte of the percent of ADT iri t11e peak hour is a critical elermnt
in- the detnrmina,tion of the severity of the adverse impact.
Paraga:-aph B.;? - The traffic Ljpacts on the RcyAe 32 corridor ct�ulet be
demnstrated VOre err.01natically by s'tatin7 the e Limatcd peak lour volume
generated by tbt� pr(r,,osed develcpmsnts rather than. the ,ADT.
Paragraph fi.5 -The traffic irrrpact5 on Route 32 resulting :Crani else
constru. tion of 107 rl,aellirtg emits in the ,project aroa will b� adverse bia't
not of M Or Consequences, Tha c imilatx.ve traffic iirp;,> . s of all the
pro+�;00 1 develra,�n nes h,��Nre�ta C i .00 and VOrcSt Ranch on IR01'"e 32 has a
Potential advor5ity of hl-tjor✓ Prq:
:jj ' M
M Del. Siemsen, County Counsel
Fpom" Steve Streeter, Planning
UEUECT. fl.i., liwaiy 32 Public Road Connections, File 83-47
DATE: February 17, 1984
YOU TCKl,Ltested information. on -the status Of this project.
Wo sent a letter With attachments to Part. Nelson and Associates
nn January 27, 1984. In the letter
requested the draft EIR be revised toS,i icludec�tile rehed copy),
ls i'ans
Within the body of the report and not as an edcl,ONIC1um. ns
A submittal is expected from `'el.son
next 2 ;voeks, & Associates tv1 th i.n
If further questions arise
Please cont,act oiir o1: _Gie:ex
SAS: Ikt
Attachment
A, IP" It IIA WANYIOUATION Ar, EDMUND G. BROVIN JP_ 0),)i-rry
SrAfE OF
DEPART/Al":INT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 3
p,0. 601( yll MARYSVILLE 95701
Telepho'no, (916) 674-4270
Docember 11, 1981
03-Bw t— 3?
Publlt,c Mad Approach
kNjr. Lynn Smith
22 Via Verona Circle
Chico, California 95926
Dear Mr. Smith:
prior to your July 6, 1978 action, the Butte County Board of
Supervisors passed Resolution No. 77-182 requesting public road
connections tn State Route 32 at four locations. The approach at
Sta. 561+00 to serve your property was included. As you probably
know, this request requires approval of the California Transporta=
tion Commissioh (CTC) because Highway 32 in this area is a declared
"Freeway" and has controlled access.
The basic purpose of having access control on any `Agh-vlay is to mini-
mite the potential for operational problems alotio the highway which
would be generated by uncontrolled., Indiscriminate access:
when access control was established along this section of Route 32
adjacent property o%,ners were compensated for giving up tight of
access except at designated locatic-'ns and except for specified
purposes. That created, in effect, a contract. between the property
owners and the State. The CTC is the body that would legally approve
a modification to the contract.
Changing a private field road approach to a public toad approach
in order to serve a residential subdivision is a major change,
Before the C12C can act on this matter, an environmental Impact
Study and finding must be accbtli.pl i shed in accordance wii-b the
California tnvironmefttal Quality Act:,
At the same general time of your request, othet property ens twoIado
similar requests regarding access to their proper -Lies. As a result
of a series of meetings WiEtr Butte COunt-Y Officials, some property
owners and engineering consultants, it Was agreed that to have, a
proper and legal onvitotmerital assessment of the requested changes
there hart to be a Coordinated study to cover all the requests. This
study has not been accomplished by the County at this time,
N
'LIP• x'
Date 2/14/84
To Rd Palmeri, CitY oi" Chaco Pln.
PramSt eve Streeter, lutfie County Pln.
.....vNccessnry+ Stiction
......Prepare reply
,.....Comment
,.....Note and return
..... iNote and file
,.....In'vestigate
,,....Signature
...,.,Confer
..x..As-,requested,
....Xor information
.a..per telephone
conversation
SUTYn GnUNTY
Draft r..1 R ar o r iiwy 32
puialic Toad approaches;
Letters received from
City off` Chico, Cal-
trans, ijigilwjay Patrol;.
Jami -ry 27 1W
latter in reponse to
fi" ,;' two letters;
rear onse to H glllgay
Patrol ceinmei,
F77
UrORNIA -OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Oovurnor
,,CE OF RESOURCES, ENERGY, AND PERMIT ASSISTANCE
1400 TENTH STREET
SACRAMENTO, CA 95514 r n
Deccmber 8, 1983
putts Co, pl Taig arm.
Mr, Stephen A. Streeter
Butte County Planning��
7 County Center Drive ditcraia
Orovill:e, CA 9S965 �rovillo4
SubieCt SCH# 83110802, State Highway 32
Dear Mr. Streeter,
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental. Impact Report
(EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is closed and the com-
ments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) attached. If you would like to discuss
their concerns and recamiendations, please contact the 'staft from the appropriate
agency(ies)
When preparing the final EIR, you must include all comments and responses (CEQA
Guidelines, section 15146). The certified EIR must be considered in the decisiorr-
making process for the project, in addition, we urge you to respond directly to the
camnenting agency(ies) by writing to then, including the State Clearinghouse number on
all correspondence.
A 1981 Appellate Court decision in Cleary v. County of Stgnislaun (118 Cal. App. 3d
348) clarified requirements for responding to review ccmnents. Specifically, the
court indicated that ccxmitnts must be addressed in detail, givingreasons why the
pecific comments and suggestions were not accepted. The responses must show factors
overriding significance which required the suggestion or camnent to be rejected.
Responses to comments must not be conclusory stateuents but must be supported by em-
pirical or experimental data; scientit c authority or explanatory information of any
kind. The court further said that the responses must be a good faith, rea8:ped
analysis.
in the event that the project is apprnved without adequate to tigation of jignificant
effects, the lead agency must make written findings for each significant effect and it
must support its actions with a written statement of ovetri'i-ng considerations for
each unmitigated significant effect (CEQA Guidelines Section 15888 and ].5035)
If the project requires discretionary approval frcm any state agericy, the Notice of
Determination ;must be fled with the SeeretarV for Resources, as well as with the
County Clerk. Please contact Pr tor: WO ker° at ! 91(i ; 445--0061.3 if you have any questions
about the environmental review process.
,3incerel�r,
i r ry RC
man cager?
State Clearinghouse
cc; Resources gaen
att?Ci en
hIt y
R . i A.
state of California
1'J emora ndum
To : State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
•
From : Department of California Highway Patrol
Valley Division
11,336 Trade Center Drive
P. 0. Box 8001
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-800
Buoss, Transportation and Housing Agency
Date : December 2, 1983
File No. ;
Subject : DEIR i 'J PUBLIC ROAD
CONNECTIONS TO STATE
ROUTE 3 2 j NE OF CHICO
IN BUTTE COUNTY
�z-
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) has reviewed the Butte County
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for public road approaches
to State Highway 32
The report contains an excellent discussion of the various issues
concerning the project together with problems and mitigation
measures. However, the report does not specifically address the
issue concerning impacts on traffic law enforcement.
The GHr 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. 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 State
Highway 32 be written to include an element discussing the impacts
of the project on traffic law enforcement setVices. Further, we
also urge that the local office of the CSP be consulted on
developing the issue for the report.
Lieutenant R. A. Grayo the Chico Area Commander, may be contacted
at 995 First Street, P: 0. Box 1.7191 Chico, CA 95927, telephone
(915) 895-4444, for further information,
L. G. TURNER, Chief
CC: Chico area
State of California
Business and Transportation. Agency
M-emo��ndum
To 4 Executive Officer
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
From : DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
District 3 - Environmental Branch
Subject:
Date, November 30, 1983
File , 03 -But -32
Public Road
Approaches
Caltrans, District 31 has reviewed the draft EIR for the construction of three
public road connections to Highway 32 east of Chico. These connections would
provide access to several residential parcels on the east side of the highway.
The draft EIR was prepared as part of the application for approval by the
California Transportation Commission.
As documented in the draft ESR, Caltrans has been concerned with the increased
use of substandard private drives to serve new subdivisions. We are anxious to
work with the County and private developers to provide higher standard facil-
ities. 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.
When the final EIR is certified, .it should be submitted to Caltrans, along with
a yf the Notice of Determination (which should also be filed with the
Stagy• aretary for Resources in Sacramento) These documents will be Used :in
our project approval application:
If there are any additional questions on these comments, please contact Jeannie
Baker at the above address, or telephone (916) 741-4498.
Wi R. CREEK
District Director of Transportation
By
Brian J: Smith
Chief, Environmental Branch
t+
D E C; 1983
OPPICE O
AND Rr,,
rL�NG OFFICE _' `_
CITYO C1,1Igp Firth'"I Mall, Sireels
INC miPO E9bx 'i46()
C;Islr;t7
(A 959w
1910 Deceit
Arrjs 4'19 48,51 tbep 1983
Mr, Steve Streeter, Senior Planner,
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive
Oroville, California 95965 Buffe Co. Planning Comm.
t. C 6 1983
OrOVl118, CaMornto
SUBJ.- Responses to Draft EIR for State Highway
Dear Steve; 9 y 32
Thank you for the Opportunity
pportunty to comment on the above referenced
We are submitting the followin
Proposed project; g comments relative to
the
1. The Cumulative traffic impact on SR 32 in t
area would appear to be significant No ti at7Chico Urban
Proposed in the bEIR other than areference tol is
to
Publ'
7 c
The traffic analysis referred to on
Z, (at least not in page 35 do
its entirety) in appendix, II Iles not appear
The DETR does not adequate entirety)
address G as stated.
in, the Chico urban area cumulative traffic impacts on SR
should be This concern, aloe 32
included in the report. g with specific mitigatioh measures
contact the You h rvig any questions rece,garding our comment;
Please feel free to
Sincerely,
EdWihRPalmer?
````y
.
ERP:pb Assistant Planner
CP 11112
A-BC-4
RQLi. x
U102/1-3/84gate___
To Lt. R. A. Gray, CHP ..
From: ~ Planning Department^
.....Approval _ r
BUTTE c6UHTY I
i.t;AlARS��
......Necessary action
.,....Prepare reply
(copy Of response, to
......Comment
CUP letter Of 12/2/83
....«.Note anis return
...,...Note and file
,.....Investigate
......signature
......Confer
......As regttested
.. ..For infornwtion
Cc' Earl, D Nelson r,
.+....k'e-ttelephone
Assoc.
conversation
BUTTE c6UHTY I
Pilo 83-17
� S(Il ix 83110802
Ptib�!" Road Connections ,to
Highway 3?, northeast of C h Wo
Planning .Department Response to the Letter .from the California
HLghway Patrol dated December 2, 1083
TO California Highway Patrol (CHP) emphasizes throe concerns in
Vo third paragraph of the letter. They pre concerned about factors
affecting highway safety, the roadway er►vir.onment for enforcement
service operations, and emergency plans Q order to address these
factors, the letter suggests that an elemo;nt be included discussing,
the impacts of ;the project on t`raff .c law enforwomopt services
Lieutenant R. A. Gray, Chico arca commanders, was consulted ragavdin
this letter. Tn terms of factors affecting highway safety, the CUP
notes the sweepiag curves near public rood c.on►►uctions fit (10 Mile
Houso Road) and #3 (Altatina Drive). There is an cl evartinn differ-
Ont ial of about 150 feet between the norLhorly road connuct o" and
the southerly road connection. Approval of the road connections
would result in additional traffic onto the highway at a loca t io:t
where downhill traffic presents a haz vd to vehicles entering
Highway 32 toward Chico. Weather conditions affect highway saNty
as well, Peg sets in during certain clays of winter months WlrOin
traffic sa lloty. Basically, any change to the highway system that
allows for additional cross traffic presents now potential, hazards
to the through traffic pattern.
Another comment made in, the CHP letter deals with the roadway c4virr.,n —
ment for enforcement servico operations, The main comment made by
Lieutenant Gray would be to consider deleting public road connection
02 (La Castanai Drive), Elimination of one road connection is dis-
cussed as alternative 4 on pages 57 and 38 of the draft 111R.. In
order to implement this option, a frontage weld would be Wilt
connecting taa. Ca:Lstaxna Drive to 10 Mile House ]toad to the sou't'h.
Emergency plans were another concern mentioned by the Clip. Their
desire is to hist.►re that a.ccGss is kept available and open to
residences. Tn the event of a. fire or other emergency, the; C;IIP
and othc w emorgQacy vchtcles raced to be able to respona by way of
trarvorsalalo 'Access roads as woll its the ro."+1.CiG't`l.is141'1%'°. ng an :"a,c��:l"uat�:
means to escape at house fire' car a wild fire, Jar instance. Hellcoptals
way be dispatched in the event of emergencies from oithor McClellan
Air iaor.co base ov the Odding airport. Response times are Ln the
raar;v of 2S mi;iutos From either location,
If 92 or moro addklonaci resiOnvos aro developed within the project
arcs, the ChV would ht; iml:yted to tho point that at least one
rddl.t!-Onal CHV Officer may be Ontratttted. Thorc would certainly bu
Weroal; :!d ,etc ldon t potont tall with L07 dwelling unity y 'in comparison
to the 15 that presently Wit on kl v 1543 %cros. Vehkc ula;r sl e&I
and s i ut d i s t"aln,co aro c1 i t ica y C'1 vi nts A f CCK inl arCO LdeQA s Again,
the: CUP rowt1i1s1iten s thalt tVO publ is road conrevionk rather than
tl�,rvo bc• upprovcd. They W i oyo t hyt La C'.atstatrt;t Vivo does not
warrant a full come: ting Nterb" k ion,
Vile it 53-47
CI-IP officers
are on, cal.] for 'the Highway 32 Corridor extondir1, earst
of Ch.i.co. If
an officer is d.,.i.spfttched from the C11P o:f-,f:ico ne"11 theintersect
;ort
of Highway 32 and Highway 99, the rosponse t Drre .1;
approx iniatel y
10 mi,l u'tes to the subject .area. If the C [,[P o C f i ve r
is dispatched
.Growl a random :Location in the ;f icj.cl, the responww V11110
limy be as much as 25' , rn:r.ntites . There are times when thoy may part•ic-
u�..r:ly patrol,
the portion of Highway 32 between Gla i.co and Forv.n't
Ranch such as
the seasons o:C the year when 1099°1119 trucks LUlti 1 i o
Highivzr.y 32 on
a frequent bos: s CHIT officers r0spond only to traf C-: c:
situations uriJess recluested as backup .>ro'r the Shor,iff's department
or some other
law enforcoment agency.
1/27/84
TO p. C;�ray,
CHP Chico
From: Ste-ve StT cteT, Panning
i...:A:pprov:,,
Nccef�sary action
RF, once t 0 l e t t e T
Resp fxoltt
......
dated 12/x/83
......Prepare reply
G. TuTneT
...X.GOmment
TevieW rho
,.....Note and return
please
att ache d dT of t T �'
....,.Note and file
sponse and contact
C O1)
......1tnvestigate
our office
input J�
..... 5lgoature
With )Toll
Tile 5 Cly' Ja,nUa'
......Confer
requested
...,..As
information
...� .:-& telephone
cwnetsation
I
13U'f7e COUNTY L . .
..ass, Transportation and Housing Agency
State of California
or and u m
7 a St- to Clearinghouse
Date : December: 2, 1983
1.400 Tenth Street File No.
Sacramento, CA 9581.4
Subject DEIR 'UOR '.PUBLIC JMD
CONNECTIONS TO STATE
ROUTE 32, NE OF CE ICO
IN BUTTE COUNTY
From: Department of California Highway Patrol
Valley 'Division
11336 Trade Center Drive
P. 0. Box 8001
Rancho Cordova, CA 55670-800
The California HighWay Patrol (CH'p) has reviewed the Butte County.
) for public road approaches
to�StatevHighwayt32.al Smpac�- . Report (DEIR
The report contains an excellent discussion of the vax-ous issues
concerning the project together with problems and ;mitigation
measures. Hov,,everj the report does not specifically address the
issue concerning impacts on traffic law enforcement.
The CTP has a mandated responsibility for traffic law enforcement
8e, vices on a.1.1- freeways and also on all local .roadways oth-w than
t1ose within incorporated cit; ureas In keeping with. this
responsibility, the CHP is cancer ned with factors affecting h eli-
wav safety, the roadway environment for enforcement service
operations, and emergency plans. The CH'P, therefore, respectfully
Vrges that the OtIR for the public road connections to State
Highway 32 be written to include an element d-iscuss�ng the impacts
of the project on traffic laiv' enforcement services. Further, wU
also urge that the local office of the CHP be consulted on
developing the issue for the report.
Lieutenant R. A. Cray.; the Chico ?1.xea Commander, 'may be contacted
at 99.r First 5tr�.et, Pe 0. nog; 17751 Chico, Cts 95927, tel.ephOne
r
(91.6) 895-4444, for further information.
L» V-3,W0ER, CIf
c F t C;.Lc",o Area
Buflo Co. planning C tame
JAN 1984
t7rnvige, C�,'��rnirt
Pi .zinjag Department espouse to the Letter f. ntn l.e Californitc l gliway Pal: t'c�1
dated December 2 1933.
The California Highway Patrol (CHP) Emphasizes three concorns in the third
paragraph of the letter. They are concerned about tka factors affecting.
highway safety, the roadway environment for cn.Eorcemerlt scx,vi.ce operations
and emergency plats. In order to address these facto'X*So the letter suggests
that an element be included discussing the impacts of the project on
traffic law enforcement services.
Lieutenant R, A. Gray, Clticao at ea: commander, wa:, LOII WI'ted r ega i ding this
letter. in terms of ;factors af-fect ing highway safety,, 'the CHP notes the
:;tveep.ing curves near public road connections #1 (10 i•,Ii:1e lioltse Road) and
#a (Altatina Drive) 'There is a grade differential o> about 200 :feet between
-kilo northerly road 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 enteric.;,;
Highway 32 toward Chico. Weather conditions affects liighway safety as well.
Pag sets is during certain days of w .nte'C mo.111fls impord ing traffic safety:_
Basically, any change to the highway system that allows for add:itO-wtl cross
traffic presents nein potential haza�rcls to the through traffic pattern.
Another comment made 7.n the CECT letter dials with the roadway environment
f x• enforcement service operations. The main, comment made by Lieutenant
Cray would be to consider delet-Ing public road connection #2 (La Castana
1)VLve) . Elimination of one ro*,td connection :is disco sod as altcrn4tive
o 4 on pages 37 and 33 or the draft E I R A �frontc►ge road would be bulAt
connecting La Gastana Dri o to to N1i;t.e E -louse Road to the sobt1l.
Emergency platys foxxl, %,tore a.n.
o�tllcr concern ment onod by the CHP
Their desire 1.8 to 3.risurO that access i.s kept availlalAo 11.nd open to resitenc s
In the event of a Eire or o'thor Colle•rgency, the rHp and ot'het• emetgcncy
vehicles need to be able to respond by way of traversable access roads as
well. as the residents having an adequate means to escape a house fire or
a cvljd :Eire, for instance. Helicopters may be dispatched in. the event OF
emergencies fxu;either McClellan Air Force Base or the Redding airport.
Response times are in the range of 25 minutes from o-Ithe
r location
LE 92 or more additional residences are develOPOd Within the project aroa,
the CHP would be impacted to the point that at least Ono additional CHP
officer may be warranted. There would certainly be 'ricreased accident
Potential, with 107 dwelling units in comparison to Ac 15 that presently
exist on the 1543 acres, Vehicular speed and sight distance are crit rcal
elements affecting accidents. Again, the CHP recommends that two pubic
road connections rather than three be approved. They believe that Le
Castit'Ina Drive does not warrant a full connecting intersection.
C,
CHP Officers are on call for the Highway 32 cO'7r-Ldo-r extending kaSt Of
Chico: If an Officer is dispatched from the CHP o:rfjco near 'the intersect on
of Highway 32 and Highway 99, the response time is; approximately 10 minutes
to the subject area. if the CITP offi
cer is dispatched from a randon
location in the field, the response time may be -1S Much as 25 minutes.
There are times when they may particularly patrol the portion of Highway 52
between Chico and Forest Ranch such is the special Limos when 109gill't' trucks
are oporating. CHI) offlCeVS respond Or -LY to traffic Situations 'unloss
rectt,iested as backup for the ShcrIff's department or some other law onforcoMe'lit
agcacy.
RoLIPT
-T� %Wxa"Ie
To T,t, g, A. grav, CHP Chico
From: Steve Streeter, Plap.,niing_
.4.*..1%PPrOvv,z
......Necessary action
......Prepare reply
....I.Comment
.....:Note and return
......Note and file
......Investigate
*,ioiiSignature
:..:..Confer
......As requested
.X.For laformation
,
..,...Per telephone
conversation.
BUTTE coUNtY
At o Response to tette
dfrom
Lated. �,. Turoer
r1ease re", -evl t1to
attached .,(raft .e-
sponse ani. contact
()ur offic, (534z-4601)
tivjtjj ykitir input, by
Tuesday, .'anuary 31.
LI
To aTJ D
Nelson F Associatesv oil, KS
*4.6.6:1."rr--
necessary act ion
on
......prepare reply
...6..c'omtneat
......Note .and return
...i ,Note and file
......investigate
.:.. �.5gnature
.:6.«,Confer
0.4..6As tegiiested
.X...FaC information
.6*...Per telephone
conversation
0u riE cbuHTY
Comments Teceivea oil
llwy• 32 Draft rIR
from the 1•iigWaay
Patxol., Caltrans and
the City of. Chico
UNITED STATIE5 POSTAL SERVICE
OFFICIAL NUSINES. PENALTY. FOR PRIVATE
W
ER INSTRUCTIONS usE TO AvOIo PAYMENT'
OF POSTAGE. f.'Ibfr tsA�AM
Printrau, and Zip Code in the pace below,
trsm::: r
e hams 1, 2, end a on the revotsa
An cho front of erode if tpace permit,
affix to back of artkla
article "Return Receipt Requoaod"
to numbnt. i
RETURN
TO
WHO CO. manriingc mrii. Butte County Planning Dept.
NOV 1983
(Na"ofSender)
a
7 County Center Drive
Crov' 61 ralitorcia (Street or P.O. Baez)
Hwy 32 Oroville, CA 95965
8 3 - 4 7 (City, State, and ZIP Code}
lkt
4-6 SENDLilt K' Mplete items 1,-2, and 3.
c AAd your address lntAa "RETURN TO" space on
� tsvcru'.
The folloWitlg service is requested (chock ono.)
O[Show to whom and date delivered............
4 ❑ Show 10 whom, date and address Of delivery...._ 4
C� ItFry J it1CTP,D DELIVERY
V
m dhow to whom and date deliveted......4.......4
❑ jtEsT UCTED DE11ORY,
how to whom, date, and address of detivcry.S_.
(CON5Uj T PU5TMA51ER FOR FEES)
2: ARTICLE ADDRESSED TO=
m' :tate Clearinghouse
m 3, ARTICLE DESCRIPTION: INSURED NO,
m REGtSI EKED NO. CERTIFIED NO.
l1 1>,�ve rocived the article desdribed above.
mMdWATUgE ElAddr� �]Audi�ulzed agent
O
DATE DF DEL ryERY
q !<��
is,
ADDna"S "( mptetis enlyIf
n
0
m ti
U� NAt1LE fD DELIVER pECAUSEt
S'}9 RCS .
b
CPO f i4187568
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, 1400 'Tenth Street, Pon.. 121, ShcramentG, CA 05014 -- 916/445-0617 ~^"
See NOTE Belot
No' 51F COMPLETION ALIO C11VIROiIMENTAL DOCUMENT rvi,,
1. Project TitIe:.
St clto []a 4;]lhrs`l,'
2. lead Agency'
Butte COU71ty PIc-111,11"ill * 3. Contact Persons SILO` 3_--IICI1- + Stl`r1C''l C`L"
3a, Street Address:
7 Count Cont'G'1• ]l1'Avo 3b, City: 07 0y i.) IC -- --
]3ul.tc9 ) 534601
3d. Zip: 9S9 -GS 3e, Phone, l r .) �r.
3c, County;
PROJECT LOCA71Oti 4. County: I311tto 4a. City/Commtunity: �U7 IIoas't dr Chi Co
4b, (uptional) Assessor's
Parcel No. _ 4c. Section 2. • 3 r_. �40p., ' ,N Range 21,
5a, Cress Streets:
For Rural,
_ 5b' Nearest Cortanuuity:_ ,_ ]'C.)rost Ranch
6, Within [males of: a. state Hwy No, 2 b. Airports -_ c, '. ways X3,1 11 ii L 1 1 t I
- Chico C:rc:c�l.s�
7. 00Ci ' tiT TYf E
8. LOCAL ACTT-O'I_TYPE 10. DIVELOPMENT TYPE
C
Ol General Pl,.n Update 01 Residential- Unit,_ Acres —
01 , �tDo
02 _New Element 02 Office, Sq,Ft:
02 „__,,,,,Early Coils
03 General Plait Amendment Acres _ —,—Employees
OJ —__Neg Dec
04 _Plaster plan 03 Shopping/Comnat"cttl' 5q,Fte , _'__,�-
04 X Draft EIR
05 Annexation Acres, — . -- Employees ___
05Supplement/
_
05 Specific Plait 04 ____.Industrial: Sq Ft.
Subsequent E'IR
(it sc, prior SCN N
07 Redevelopment Acres _ Employees
)
03 _Rezone 05 „Sewer: MOO ---
_
NEPA
04 Land Division 06 Eater: MGD
06 Notice of lntent
Subdivision, Parcel Map,
Tract Map, etc.) 07 �l Transportation: Type 3 1 h7 'LC 7 U7ll _
`ij7171 OK1CllE`
08, Mineral Extraction. Mineral
07 Envir. Assessment/ 10 Use Format �-
-FOI151
09Power Gelteration Wattage -
11 � Cancel Ag Preserve-�-=--- ^--
of �0raft Els
12X_, other .Cbb't"_C111 at'i oil Type;
OTIO
0� ].')111` 1 'i C r0cicl 10 ^other,
00—Information Only
lelolls witil
Co'l iia 15 F the Cali f,
10 �. Final Document
7''1'C1115j10Tt`rit:l011 C0IllllliSs-'I,01?.
11 , _other:_
7'(7'1AL ACRES 3 54 34•
11. _PROJECT.ISSUES.015CUCSEO 1ti bt�li I-
Ol _ _Aesthetic/Vi ual
Os Goblogic;seismic 15 Sewer Capacity 22 Witter Supply
02®, Agricultural Land 00 SobslWoustrig Balance 16 Soil trosion 23 Wetland/Riparian
05 ' it, quality
10 %— minerals 17 Solid 'Waste 24 X Wildlife
.Ai
04 !trcriaeolog,ical/}ristorical
11� ,Dasa 10joltit/Wazardaus 25 Growth Ind.cirg
45
12', —Puwic Services 10 LTrafficirirculation 26 _. -JACO-vatiblo tee jtt
.Costal
05 ire Na; srd
13 Sthotil, 20 Vegetation til X- CioulaLive Etfec t
i -i
lit Sop'tic Sys VMS , 21 Vatpr huallty .,.,-.
;7 �'lsed'i+='*toiiaihaOG
,>,
12, FuilOth"i4;tpprb+,) Federal S stat:
13. PR1SE',T,LAND USE: Atin 2011ING: OPNI flC" c,. tgo wi t11 rC'lmr t111111 20 a`C'S0 dol1CG $. ,
%1 >(G�1i .lj illri
TIM -40 ('l'; lliber Plomlt�.1.il, 40 tic-ro whl lTltt111 parcc'1ti).
1d, Ph�.1r~G� AFSCPgT,;1
Applc atxtz11 :r0�' til�'ci �t1d j•C..Qtlq;l j��11)'j, ic r'r)cl rwt�I111oci .ons to St atc
IftOwkly 32, llt)TthoC-Ist 0:C (.11 coo I'lle jl'1'Clposod 'food C`el11loct:ict."Is arc
`Poll Milo House Rovtt1, ba Co t oma D1'i vo €filet A t q ta»tt )7riVo,
'1j)P'i'0XI'lll,'It0I)' 10 Wiles 1101'tlio st or i'.h I-C'o :ilk fli.v 1101• "st, r7.rov. .
r�
' Vy" c» y
iJ, .„ , ,: s�� ,� Ml'( tri k„!'�t' Unto
Is. SEG.pATri"'P [rA0 AIIINCY REf`rl 5C+1T.iTiVc. A / vf.»e
k G li ail= I�. Strcut ev Son w, Planner
`i(IT ; r;�1,�ri1 pt,ia,a: All iiy5iJYt 411C11tiriclttoh rtul l,'rt tW' all ntlw nibja.h, If t1' SCH I'110itri` alrryady exists fr"'' d I`�''t:-��
1lstic3 vrtliaratlort ur pi,ovicus dr -+ft dohuslent) 1110ase till it in,
EO1J1 REV1SEo 1/63 R16PLACC`5 CA140 bL'�RY pISTRitUTlOtI ON RWOr
13
REVIEWING
AGENCIES
Resources Agency
CTRPA (Cal RiA)
X Air Resources Board
TBPA (Tahoe RPA)
X Conservation
Bay Conservation & Dev't Comm
Fish and Game
Parks and Recreation
Coastal Commission
X Office of Historic Preservation
X Caltrans District 3
Native American Heritage Comm
X Gal trans - Planning
X State Lands Comm
Caltrans - Aeronautics
Public Utilities Comm
X California Highway patrol
Energy Comm
Boating and Waterway's
Food and Agriculture
Forostry
Health Services
State. Water Resources Control
s)
Statewid.W Health Planning (hospitals)
Board' - Headquarters
Housi ng and Community Dev' t
X Regional Water Quality Control
Corrections
Board, Region S __.
_ General Services
Division of Water Rights (SWRCB)
Office of Local Assistance
Division of 'Water Quality (SWRCB)
Public Works Board
` Dcpartment of Water Resources
Office of Appropriate Technology (OPR)
Reclamation Board
y Local Government Unit (OPR)
Solid t.!agte i-tanagement Board
Santa Monica �,iountains Conservancy
Colorado Pivor Board
Other
rOiZ SCH CH
r
USS O�iLY
Date Receigoj at SCH
Catalog NLImb�_r
Oato Review Starhts .—�
proponent
Date Lo Agencies
Consultant
Da`t`.; ":o SCH
Contact ,. Phone_
Date
Address
lia 4�.i . 1
.Y.YUY ,rrH....�M+.H..+. W.;1.�..wa•'h+..rrwu:.+f.�'++�..e.�.'+.•�' '-- Ja.u».:a.:lxrr .:
yu.Y, x.br.wa:. ..... _-u:W�..+. ..• . wrr�;.•r...rr
._x.rrwµsJ+Ww,.,'4Yi1Lr.aLL ataxyaY..i.iY..bu's.•'Irl'•r+r�•I.fYti^i#•w..i+t.�v.+_w.r�•r.'...�r u.Y,r'+y+....#'+.r..
.. 1::iw.k+✓rat o-xaYFdY•+M4.�W+•-w.+3i+.WMJN.4u..yi Y�rLr"5r.d••r.HxrYi.k •... ay+-+.
TM State C:loaringhouso Attention: Pr.icc Walker-t-
FROM: Steve Streeter, Butte County Planning
sup oun Review Period for PTR - Il.ighway 32. Public Road Approaches
an+
November 2, 1985
Please consider a 30 day review for the :following roasons;
1. Caltrans is the primary state agency with responsibility
for this pro,joct. Jeannie BaRer (ATSS 07-4498) of District
3 in Marysville has confirmed that a 30 clay review is
acceptable in light of their review of the pro 1 imi.nav)'
draft BIR.
2. A number of propeTty owners have received approval :for
tentative parcel maps which cannot be filed .in final
form until the public road connections aro approved by
the California Transportation Commission.. We are at
.Stop ff 7 in a 2`0 stop process. See attarbmont
3. A shortened- state review Will not shorten the local
review period. Ample opportunity will be given for
public review and comment on the draft Elft during
November to early December and at a public hearing to
be set in december or January.
If you need to discuss this mauler, please telephone our
office at 534-4601.:
AS t :l kt:
0
WI)cc em ber 1982
PROCEDURAL STEPS FOR PROCESSING MI I -lo Q,6 C,
A LOCALLY INITIATED hJAJOR PROJECT
FIJAY OR A NM CONNECTION 0 ta 3
1. Local agency PE'S'8es resolution requesting new connection.
2. projecteA th r' ation Report - Caltrans prepares Report for the
I n o,z
'A - macle to
Direct�-,� S con)�ptoal approval. No commitments can be
.1 c, report
until this approval is obtained. Thi -
local ' �4cZc-q Unt local agency.
is tv"t f L�fnd�d by an advanced deposit from the
The amount required is Usually $10,000-00-
3. Local agency prepares Stage II Project- Work pr
The
Stage 11 PWp i$�.plrepared af, or planning stu(ji,(,r.-, ha,vu establ isi ed
basic dc
Mures r e 8 a
,dn 116 .Lternates tentati"Voly � VQI?OsOd for
environmental document. The PUrPOsc Of
env
agrec)'1011t On -Oject
t -he S I P I is to assure goner. al, c p 1.
features to be considered for formal public rovieW of the
project.
4. Appropriate draft environmental study is prop�ired by local agency.
It is very Important that
,,I necessary consultations be made
by the local agency - this includes tile Dist-rictPtOjOct Develop-
ment Team and the VI -MA Area Representative if Vederal approval
will be required. The study shall be preparod in accordance
with current instructions. Close coordination with Caltrans'
environmental staff Is ill'POrtiallt-
When en'Vimn lital study has been found satisfactory by Caltrans;
District., .76r-bpares project Roport and draft ironmental
docuTA6 MV
t6 circulate the draft enviLr011mOntal document and
G. Au tlloriv,--:Iti I " i
. / - , s given by
6j;i,�,jalve tile public hearing process 3.
to proceed,,,/Q'wi;, t 1 4
Chios, Of 10,e q� Planning and Development -
I
!7, NOU00- Of availability or,draft 01-10t011ment'n.1 tlOcllmellt
published.
Comments on draft environmental documewnitht: ahenringc.�ivccl. DoclsioiA
is made on whob
i e0a ,
lIL-r Or not to PrOc
Notices of Public 11cal:iny or opportunity aro j)Ubliqh0C1 and
mailed to interested parties. (Can be done in conjunction with
or cll:ar.
notice of availability L environmental document)
10. 'Public hearing is conducLe(l by local agency. ncy. These hea> ingg cat'
be lengthy and tend to i nte)- Ccre with norm,13. J,ocal agoncy bU.Si-
ll,- 'me -�llg'
no8s when combinod kULH) a taOU Irly sC1lCdL1,10t1 btlllinOSS
Tho-tcforot all efforts should be made to sCh0dU1,C the now
L, -it'
connection hearing ao a 00L)araLC hearing" The Vt sent'
oti
MUSt COVOI: all tho roqU1r(,(1 Items anti Vdll PY,arvi�al-)ly be m4clo
lay tiro local agency t�IjLjj tile Calttn1`18, staff t-,uppoft
ca pa C i Ly: ill any Cape, rctpohziblo Caltralls rQPrL-SCht,-'ti,V0s
be pre8onb at the hoarinfj.
11. Record of Public floating and the final env,rojimental study
are prepared by the local agency.
1,2. Record of Public nearing is reviewed by Ca;l(;),Ins.
13. Caltrans, District 3; prepares and senOo drri:f`t rreeway
agreerncnt and Project Approval Report (wlhicit includes
environmental document) to. Caltrans Headquo tors.
14, FHWA approval is requested by Caltrans at this tiiie.
(FMIA Area Representative should be involved throughout the
project development ,process.)
15. Environmental document approval is given. ri:nal environ-
mental document is distributed.
I.G. Freeway Agreement is executed by local agency.
ll. Net connection is approved by California Transportation
Commission.
1£3. -Freeway Agreement is executed by State.
19. Notice of 'Determination is filed.
20. Cooperative Agreement between local agency and State is
entered into.
Note: This is a general, guide to
for development of a Specific Project
d Should
be determined during the. Project Auf—o igation Report
Development (Stop 2) .
LOOM
w
IAND OF NATURAL W ALTfi j Aha 11 Sti1gatte couni
AtJ1Y
PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE gRC1YII,l.C. GAL Il 111th11A 1�"rVGS
PHONE, sv"60I
RE Stcttc 11-1911"y t 32 BIR (S p1. bl i.c roild con"Slrt`'t
Filo, It 837
pct report (>~,1}i) has liccill l)"Pared
A. clraCt env ,xonlllcilt1l. illlp�
Cor this Prof ccs. and t.l1c docullient publ,lshecl.
r casts, lqo are not a i.st1"xhttta.n th i s
,j'o avoid{, any Lln c"Ossary a ,1 -8 to }�Ll}?� �C
clocl-nicht to pa•ivatc inclividutl.l.s or duplic�' col.tal
a encacs.
Co Of of t}le �tbovo in �uUloacerevic� t�1t.71tileaplann n
impact rc-POrt 8rc: a, a tl�ihl c, a Xtile
l7c�attincllt at 7 County Cental' Dri:VcUna��ersQt, ,YAnd Butte}�Col.7c��unty
} Chico State
Lil�1•aryT lircncllcs,
Li,braxy
c1�a is a c}iai��e a C $1.2.67, fo thc� E. T .'1 ]. you would a a )
}� Yt 1V J. 17 }fie ScIlt to yoll ll'I"iall rCCellSt Uyv
a copy of the �. T . �2. , c of $2,20 for
tl tot�ll 01
t1li.s o.fCice O.f $12.61 PIIS, postOg
should yoll have any rluest"Ons p�.octsc Co oTit.rle`l illi—s' Cle}acl�°tXncn,t,
5iiice•cly;
1i . A Iw r 7•o h cv 1`
Director of 111,11111`Lll
r
l
A. StTOOct(l'
SAS 1lit
as"w 4
-{ counta
LAND OF NATURAL WIC ITkI AND BEAUTY
PLANNING GOMMIWON
7 GOUNTY CENTER DRIVE - ORoVIImL.Iq, GALIrORNIA 95965
PHONE-, 514.14601
Novel*obel' 21 1983
RE: State Ijighway 32
Manning it 83-47
To Whom Tt May CanceTn
The enclosed (Draft)
Environmental Impact Report on the
above-named application for your information and. review:
been
A Notice of Completion of thndrthe Resourc}essAgencyf ofed
With the Butte County Clork
California Secretary,
she material contained in the draft
Comments concerning
E„ T , R, are solicited, Suc at above address
tte County pl.annxngDepartment nt
erioof review on Monday,
the Bu
until the close of they day p
December S, 190'.
Should you
have any gttedepartment.
stionsj please contact this
Sincerely,
B. A, Kircher.
Air for of Planning
enA. S:ieeter
Senior Planner
SAS lkt
Enc.
MESSAPE
TO o T: Butte County Literary Chaco Branc
M _
DATE TIME PHONE
Mr=SSAGF=, 5� tateHit h- war 32 FIR
Ari extz•a copy of tjxo ETR is
being farwarderi to you so that one may
be circulated/available for
c' -hocking
out ovgni ht pr loner: ' -
n Telophohod
1Roturr: Call
M Please Call
[? Will Call
r WON In
Again
Wants to 5,0 YOU
M Wonnatlon
Conitnow
NMe and
LS Re-route,
f7tlFlY
tnvosligato
Contact
(_j Row"
. ,.0 5rgYlatutq
Appt*vol
Ma
U File
Forwardad
Per Raquest
Mr=SSAGF=, 5� tateHit h- war 32 FIR
Ari extz•a copy of tjxo ETR is
being farwarderi to you so that one may
be circulated/available for
c' -hocking
out ovgni ht pr loner: ' -
December 1982
PROCEDURAL STEPS FOR PROCESSING Owl ff0 CO. Plannintl Comm,
A LOCALLY INITIATED MAJOR PROJECT
FOR A NEW CONNECTION fv]U 55 1983
oroy'lle', California
1. Local agency passes resolution requesting new connection.
2. Project; A 'Ration Report - Caltrans prepares Report tor the
eptual approval. No commitments can be made to
Direct,
s n
local"' C, n until this approval is obtained. This report -
is CA' f Cnd d by an advanced deposit from the local ngoncy.
The amount required is usually $10,000.00.
3. Local agency pre' ares Stage II Project Work Program (PWP). The
Stage II,PW P is-,'�repared after planning studies have established
basic d '1'
/g rn sues and alternates tentatively proposed for
covera,' in t e m
draft environmental document. The purpose of
the St
Ii P6P is to assure general agreement on project
features to be considered for formal public review of the
project.
1
44 Appropriate draft environmental study is prepared by local agency.
it is Very important that all necessary consultations be made
by the local agency - this includes the District Project Develop-
menu Team and the FHWA Area Representative if Federal approval
will be required. The study shall be prepared in accordance
with current instruction;. Close coordination with Caltrafts'
environmental staff is important.
5; WhenU, 1 r1m
' pl�m Ontal study has been Pound satisfactory by Caltrans,
t/3/6.Vepares Project Report and draft environmental
documM
6. AUthbrizati 6,�circulate the draft environmental document and
to proceed kith 6,tLwaive the public hearing process is given by
Chief, Of do o/,blanntng and Development.
fi
7. Notice of availability of draft environmental document is
published.
84 Comments on draft environmental document are L-OoeiVod. Decision
is made on whether or not to proceed With hearing.
9.
4
10 o
Notices of Public Hearing or opportunity are published and
mailed to Interoatec! parties. (Can be done in Conjunction with
notice of availability of draft environmental, document)
Public hearing is ce,!.luctc-d by local agency. These hearings can
be lengthy and berm, L,,, interfere with normal local agency busil-
mess when combined i regularly scheduled business meeting.
Thereforej all, efro �3hould be made to schedul.e the new
connection hoaring se-.,parate hearing. The presentation
Must Cover all t,hE I .cited items and Will preferably be made
by the local ageic� -.J, the Caltrans staff in a support
c,aP a c I by 4 in any responsible C41brahs tepreset itatives will
be present at the hearing,
11. Record of Public. Hearing r-,nd the final environmental study
are prepared by the local agency.
12. Record of Public Hearing is reviewed by Caltrans.
13.. Caltrans, District 3 prepares and sends draft freeway
agreement and Project Approval Report (which includes
environmental document) to Caltrans Headquarters.
14. FHWA approval is requested by Caltrans at this time.
(FHWA Area Representative should be involved tlCoUghout tho
project development process.)
15 Environmental document approval is given. Pint -i etiviroli-
mental, document is distributed.
16. Freeway Agreement is executed by local agency.
17. New connection is approvL4 by California Transportation
Commission. ,
18. Freeway Agreement is executed by Sate,
19. Notice of Determination is filed.
20i Cooperative Agreement between local agency and State is
entered into.
Note; This is a general guide to project development. The steps
for development of a specific project may vary and should
be determined during the Project Authorization Report
Development (Step 2)4
C
e
OuHa Co. Planning comm.
OCT 3183
BOARD 0�' SUPLRiIISORS di
Oroville, Gati{orni
COUNTY 4F BUTTE
REFrItRAL 'NnTIGE
Dato September 30, 1983
r
has been referred to you,
Xx Please study the matter.
XX For your. information.
XX Please take the following action;
Proceed with plabl.ic hearittg process
Report to Board on
Advise action taken, sign below, and return this notice to the
clerk of the Board of Supervisor$%
dead
Sgnntut`e
of
Departinent
Steve Baker, 'Connerly & Associates - requesting that the Board
approve a letter to be signed by the Chair requesting approval
for using program income as an advance to set up impound accounts
for CDBG-boz- rowers delinquent on insurancn 0_ property taxes.
`O'rsviv`r AUTHORIZE LETTER AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIG`L
VOTE: 1Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 A (I`ioton carried}
5_ felly Meagher - regarding a bili of $7,000 due from Bidwell Heights
LandCompany and asking that County collect before .approving their
project. (NECHAMISr4 TO REQUIRE P 1j.4 _4T IS CONTAINED IN. PROP05T'^_
EgVIRON1,1ENTAL 'REVIEi7 GUIDELINES, NHICH1 WILL PROBABL" BE BEFORE THF'
BOARD rN NOVEMBER)
6.: Russ Croninger - regarding the EIR on State Highway 32.
MOTION.r TO GIVE DIRECTION is STATE` TO gROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING
PROCESS AND TO A.C+ EPT T',31S ENVIROTIMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTO
THE RECORD..
S M.
VOTE< 1 Y 2 N 3 Y 4 Y 5 A (Motion: carried)
Regular Agenda
Consideration of Board of Supervisors appointment of conservatorship
investigator for Ruth Rix (criminal case lie.. 70986)
MOTION;: THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE APPOINTED AS CONSERVATOR
INVESTIGATOR IN THE RUTH RIX CASE, IF NECESSARY.
M S
TOTE 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 A (Motion. carried)
Page 213
September 20 1983'
September 20, 1983
83-815
Consideration of Leslie Smothers use permit and zoning violation for
FOR THIS TO
AP 60-07-02, 21 and 22 in. Butte Meadows area. (NO NEED
BE ON THE AGENDA.; DIRECTION GIVEN AT LAST MEETING)
Public Hearings and Timed Items
63-816
Recognition of persons wishing to speak
(548
I.. Russ Cron'inger —regarding Environmental Impact Report On State'
Highway 32. (TO T.-IECT WITH COUNSEL!
e'
2 Join Ost - requesting the Board to consider the least expensive
way to carr} out maintenarict_, C:3A 24, and suggest, a meeting with
(MINUTE 'ORDER 83-812 TO INCLUDE CITIZEN
residents for their input.;
■;
:, NPU )
3.. Wenonah Fairley - requesting the Board to proclaim October 2 - 8,
IM, as 4:-H Club Week. in Butte County.
TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 83-156 -PROCLAIMING THE WEEK OF OCTOBER
MOTJON,:L
2 - a, 1983, AS 4-H CLUB WEEK IN BUTTE COUNTY.
S N
VOTE: 1 Y 2 y 3 Y 4 Y 5: A (Motion carried)
Steve Baker, 'Connerly & Associates - requesting that the Board
approve a letter to be signed by the Chair requesting approval
for using program income as an advance to set up impound accounts
for CDBG-boz- rowers delinquent on insurancn 0_ property taxes.
`O'rsviv`r AUTHORIZE LETTER AND AUTHORIZE CHAIR TO SIG`L
VOTE: 1Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 A (I`ioton carried}
5_ felly Meagher - regarding a bili of $7,000 due from Bidwell Heights
LandCompany and asking that County collect before .approving their
project. (NECHAMISr4 TO REQUIRE P 1j.4 _4T IS CONTAINED IN. PROP05T'^_
EgVIRON1,1ENTAL 'REVIEi7 GUIDELINES, NHICH1 WILL PROBABL" BE BEFORE THF'
BOARD rN NOVEMBER)
6.: Russ Croninger - regarding the EIR on State Highway 32.
MOTION.r TO GIVE DIRECTION is STATE` TO gROCEED WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING
PROCESS AND TO A.C+ EPT T',31S ENVIROTIMENTAL IMPACT REPORT INTO
THE RECORD..
S M.
VOTE< 1 Y 2 N 3 Y 4 Y 5 A (Motion: carried)
Regular Agenda
Consideration of Board of Supervisors appointment of conservatorship
investigator for Ruth Rix (criminal case lie.. 70986)
MOTION;: THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE APPOINTED AS CONSERVATOR
INVESTIGATOR IN THE RUTH RIX CASE, IF NECESSARY.
M S
TOTE 1 Y 2 Y 3 Y 4 Y 5 A (Motion. carried)
Page 213
September 20 1983'
TE SLIP
Date
9/22/83
To .Cheff John Mendonsa PWD
annin
From*.-- er Pl
4..... n F F— .
......Necessary action
please review the
;.....prepo-re reply
attached preliminary
.., .Comment
digit EIR on the HWY-
road app roach
......Notc and return
32 public
and submit youxoctob
.:....Note. and file
es
coiamen is to us by
.:..1anvdstigate
b" threafter
i oft fair schedule
asy your
....Signature
.,....Goner
..,,"tis regUested
,.X;.For informatton
......Icer telephone
conversation
aurrt coul4ry
Ou
I , P ` 41 F
-
-- PLANNING COMMISSION
7 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE - OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965
PHONE: 534.4601
May 5, 1,933
Bill Sands
Consulting Associate
330 Wall Street, Suite 6
Chico, CA 95926
RE Highway 32 Public Road Connection
Pile NO. "s3-47
Dear Bill: tilication I
responsibility For the api.
The process and Financial resp htivay 32 at Tcn utile Fiouse
for public road connections ott Hi.g b necessity,
Public road approach a��'pl catl ons inasmuch
astana Drive and Altatina Drive mus
a� Eferi from other p royal which
lication for development app
as there is no app races .
',would bear the cost of the environmental p atian of t`:<' �e
Any and all costs involved in the adwill be �Ly
public road connection app
licatons will be the respon•
of those who benefit.
2 establishing Bnvironme1ltal Review Guidelines
all costs i.ncur,red for the
Resolution 81-1 1 act Report,
provides that the applicant shall pay
re aration of an Envronlcant deposit the
administration and p p Provides that the cost
p and
The Resolution further p
Report with Butte
amount of monies estimated. to cover the acts Rep preparation ,
administration
(t the Environmental Imp
County .
ar depending upon the completeness of the nfor-
The mast may y t of sta°E'r. Therefore, a
v
mation submitted and the involvemen re aration and,
1000.E is est�mateo,act his pcomp ed, any
min4mum deposit o 1 $.
admin -1
stration of the- RIR: 1VhEn the p' 1 let
1
Bill. Sand
Page 2
may 5, 1983
unused relpainder wi.tl be ye,fu'nded, but in the
be responsib'Le
event that any
.F.or those
costs exceca the cleposit, you will
costs and ivi.11 be billed accordingly.
Upon receipt Of the rec{uirEld fees, the Notice
the State Clearinghouse
of Preparation
notified. The
will be published and
review procedure for the draft EIR 14i1.1 be as
required by CFQA
cnd the County's guidelines.
Sincerely,
B. A. Kircher
Planning Director
BAK:;lkt
cc Rin Fa Assoc. - R. Cron:inger
County Counsel
•.w
330
Wn11 Street
Stine 6
l;ir� L), i�'esan �C Assflei:ites
G'liica,�� '%icphane
0111rornia (916)
95926 893-0441
10110 ltti4 Plnniling
I nvironniemal Sttidl
Verniit Assistance:
I eiwbility Studies
April 13, 1983 11
u4e Ca %annirlg
Bettye Kircher, Director �y�a
Butte County Planning Department
7 County Center Drive Qrov►Ite, Califorw
oroville, CA 95965
Re: EIR on Proposed Public Road Connections at Ten Mile House
Road, La Castana Drive and Altatina Drive
Dear Bettye:
I have enclosed a Notice of Preparation for your rev Lew and
revision, if necessary, to be forwarded to the State
Clearinghouse and noticed to the public.
CALTRANS has been very helpful to date, Providing pertinent
information and offering preliminary assessments on the type and
extent of improveemment
y public road s that may be required for their approval of
an connections to Highway 32.
I have also enclosed a revised Initial Study that specifically
addresses the three proposed road connections under consideration
in this EIR. Much of Steve's original analysis has beet;
retained, though appropriate "dots" ha,Te been repositioned from
the "No" to "Maybe" columns. A topographical site map is
attached. I asked Steve how he wished to trent the Initial
Study, without receiving any firm decision. You may wish to
place a new date and signature on the T.S. to reflect the recent
revision. Please inform us if you decide nn a different approach.
for incorporating the I.S. into the final Elft.
At our last meeting you indicated that A letter outlining a
division of responsibilities and ,guidelines for cdi-authoring the.
EIR would be drafted and mailed to Earli ouroffice has not
received that communication; however, no Work on the Elft has been
deferred, and we 'plan to complete a preliminary draft by early
May, 1983.
Please contact Earl or myself if you require furtlior information
or clarification of any facet of EDMos work on the project to
.
date
Respectfully,
4" r
B,11 l Sands
Constilti tig Associate
encl.s
ccs Steve Streeter
■■■
r
0 APPENDIX F •
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
(To be completed by Lead Agency)
,I.
Ii
BACKGROUND
16 Name of Proponent BUTTE COUNTY
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
7 County Center Drive (916) 534-4601
3. Date of Checklist Submitted
4. Agency Requirinq Checklist
5. Name of .Proposal, if applicable public road connectonso
State Highway 32 at Ten dile House Rd, La Castana Dr. & Altatina Dr� "`
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP7kCTS
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets.)
YES MAYBE NO
1
Earth. Will theg
proposal result in si nificant
a. Unstable earth conditions or in.
changes in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacements; tom-
paction or overcovering 6;,: the soil?
c. Change in topography or ground
surface relief features? n
d. Destruction, covering or
modification of any unique geologic
or Phys-ical features`?
e; Increase in wind or water,
erosion of soils,
the site? either on or off
f. Changes ir+ deposition or erosion
of beach sands, 6r changes in siltation,
deposition or erosion which may Modify
the channel of a' river or stream or the
iced of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
'ppendi�t F page 1 of 8
1 � ,
ge Exposure of YES
geologicpeople or property to
;hazards
MA_�R No
such as earthquakes,
;landslides, mudsli�e6,
ground .failure,
or similar hazards?
2 • Air. Will the —•
— proposal result in
a• Substantia, deterioration .
air quality? ofambient
b The creation of objectionable
odors?
C. Significant---
alteration of
moisture or air
`"-- --- _
Movements
either locallemoera�gre or change in
Y
r re a.onal7,y?nx climate,
3` water. Will Will the Proposal
result zn substantial:;
a• Changes in
currents or the Course
or direction of water
movements?
b• Changes in abso
drainage rption rates,
9e patterns,
—
or the rate and
amount, of surface water
runoff?
c • Alteratzons to t
flow of he course or ,
flood
C.
waters?
d• Change in the
wateriri amount of surface ~'
any water body?
e • Discharge into surface waters, or
in an �
alteration
��-
;y of surface ti°titer
quality; inciudin but not lire iced
temperature
�Ig
to
dissolved oxygen, or
turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direc
rate of flow of tion or
f✓'
ground Waters?
4• Chan
waters ge in the quantity of ground
, either through
direct
or withdrawals► or through additions
of
except on
an aquifer by cuts oz
e�I
.ca'vatons? -
e
pndik F•• 9 2 o f
_ Aa .e $
XRS MAYBE NO
11, Reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available
for public
water supplies?
i- Exposure of ppopl,e or property to
water related hazards
such as flooding?
4. PlanLife. Will the
in substantial; proposal result
a. Change in the diversity, of species, or
number of
any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora
and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare
or endangered species of plants?
Ac
c. Int.Qduction of new species of planus
into
-
an area, or in a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species?
d. Reducta.on in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
5 Animal Life. will the _ ro
Substantial: proposal result in
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of
any species of animals {birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish
and
shellfish, benth'c organisms, insects
microfauna)? or
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species
of animals?
C. Introduction of� new species of animals
into
an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or
Movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to e
..jcisting fish or
wildlife habitat?
6'• Mose. Cvill the proposal result in
sU stantial::
a. Increases in noito :Levels?
b• Exposure of people to severe riaise levels?
`. .
Appendi>e R
p age, 3' of '8;
4
1
YES MAYBE No
7.
Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce
significant light or glare'?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the planned land
use of an area?
9.
:Natural Resources. Will the proposal result
in substantial. -
a. Increase•in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b. Depletion of any nonrenewable -
natural resource?
10.
Risk of set. Does the proposal involve
_Aga,
a risk of an ex��losion or the release of
hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to,, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset conditions?
11.
Population. Will the proposal significantly
alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12.
Hous ing . Will the proposal f icantl,y
affect existing housing, or create a
demand for additional. housing?
13:
Transportation/Circulation. Will the
proposal result ins'
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Significant effects on existing parking
facilitieto or demand for new parkinq?,
fik
c. Substantial impact upon eki;sting
transportation systems?
L
d. Significant alterations to present
Patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or Goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
Appendix" - page 4 of 8
YES
MAYBE
NO
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Ld.
Public Services,; Will the proposal have
an effect upon, or result in a substantial
need for new or altered governmental services
in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection?
�
b Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other :recreational facilities?
_
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental. services?
15.
-Energy. Will the proposal result in;
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. substantial increase in demand' upon
existing sources of energy„ or t2lquite
the development of new sources of energy?
16.
Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a. Prower or natural gas?
b. Communicatrions systems,
c.. Water?
d . Sewer?
11.
RUman Health . Will the proposal result *in
a4 creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. F cpo8UJ:e of people to potential health
hazard; -1?
Appendix F w
page 5
of 8
M
•
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result, in the
obstruction of any public designated or
recognized scenic vista open to the public,
or will the proposal result in the creation
of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impar pon the quality or quantity of
existing public recreational facilities?
20. Archeclo ical/flistor4cal. Will the proposal
result, III an alterato? of a significant
archeological or historical site, structure,
object or building?
21. Mandatory' Findings of Significance.
rA Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,,
substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce. the number or restrict the 'range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short term benefits to the
detriment of publicly adopted long-term
environmental goals?
C. Does the pro7ect have impacts which
are .individually limited, but cumula-
tively contiderable? (A projeck may
impact On two nr more separate t08Ources
where the impact on each resource i3
relatively small, rpt where the effect
of the total of U. e impacts on the
environment 1 Significant. )
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
YES MAYBE No
C
e
Appendix F -- pag e 6 of '8
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project is an application for three additional public road
connections to State Highway Route 32, northeast of Chico. The
proposed road connections are Ten Mile House Road, La Castana
Drive and Altati.na Drive. The general project site, identified as
Study Area #2 (see attached map), is located approximately 10
miles northeast of Chico in the Forest Ranch area, The project
boundaries occupy portions of Sections 25, 30,'31, 35 and 36,
Townhp 23 Norah, Range 2 East M.D.B. & M.
The topography of the project areas are generally less than 10%
slope on the ridgd tops and 30% to 607. or more toward Little
Chico Creek canyon. Little Chico Creek lies about 3%4 of a mile
to the east of the proposed road connections.
Natural vegetation in the study area is typically chaparral.
Common plant species include ciia'mise, toyon, manzanita,
California lilac (ceanothus), scrub oak, blue oak, digger pine
and various herbs and grasses. The study area is in the Upper
Sonoran Life Zone, which includes a great diversity of wildlife.
Wildlife species include skunk, coyote, California ground
squirrel, deer, quail, halaiks, lizard's (fence, alligator, etc.)',
snakes (racer, gartdr, king, etc.), various birds, insects and
other species.
The present land uses in the project areas are residential on
lots averaging 5 to 40 acres in size and open chaparral land.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the propt,ised road
connections primarily consists of open acreage, with fewer than
10 residences sparsely located throughout this area in•proximity'
to Highway 32. Another 7 to '8 residences occupy the remaining
parcel's in the study area.
An estimated 16145 acres of the project site are designated
Grazing and Open Land (GOL) in the County General. Plan, requiring
a minimum of 40 acres, per parcel. Approximately 265 acres are
zoned A-2 (General), with the remaining 880 acres zoned TM -40-
398 acres of the project study area are designated Agricultural-
Reidential (A -R), which requires a minimum of one acre per
parcel; all of this acreage is currently zoned. A-,2.
Approximately 45 parcels now exist in the project study area. A.
total of 15 residences have been constructed to date on different
parcels:
lb, 3b There will be additional compaction and overcovering of
thesoil from the use of the roads leading up to he access points
and from possible widening And paving of the roads in the futures
The public road. connections will open up some new areas for
residential and other land uses ;which will result in covering the
soils with impervious m,'Iteria!8. The rate and amount of storm
runoff may subr tantally increase. The soils in this area are
generally scab land, rough broken and stony land or Aiken clay
loam. Natural drainage of these soils is fair to good:
Appendix V 6 Page 7a of 8 '
�t
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
This project is an application for three additional public road
connections to State Highway Route 32, northeast of Chico. The
proposed road connections are Ten Mile House Road, La Castana
Drive and Altati.na Drive. The general project site, identified as
Study Area #2 (see attached map), is located approximately 10
miles northeast of Chico in the Forest Ranch area, The project
boundaries occupy portions of Sections 25, 30,'31, 35 and 36,
Townhp 23 Norah, Range 2 East M.D.B. & M.
The topography of the project areas are generally less than 10%
slope on the ridgd tops and 30% to 607. or more toward Little
Chico Creek canyon. Little Chico Creek lies about 3%4 of a mile
to the east of the proposed road connections.
Natural vegetation in the study area is typically chaparral.
Common plant species include ciia'mise, toyon, manzanita,
California lilac (ceanothus), scrub oak, blue oak, digger pine
and various herbs and grasses. The study area is in the Upper
Sonoran Life Zone, which includes a great diversity of wildlife.
Wildlife species include skunk, coyote, California ground
squirrel, deer, quail, halaiks, lizard's (fence, alligator, etc.)',
snakes (racer, gartdr, king, etc.), various birds, insects and
other species.
The present land uses in the project areas are residential on
lots averaging 5 to 40 acres in size and open chaparral land.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the propt,ised road
connections primarily consists of open acreage, with fewer than
10 residences sparsely located throughout this area in•proximity'
to Highway 32. Another 7 to '8 residences occupy the remaining
parcel's in the study area.
An estimated 16145 acres of the project site are designated
Grazing and Open Land (GOL) in the County General. Plan, requiring
a minimum of 40 acres, per parcel. Approximately 265 acres are
zoned A-2 (General), with the remaining 880 acres zoned TM -40-
398 acres of the project study area are designated Agricultural-
Reidential (A -R), which requires a minimum of one acre per
parcel; all of this acreage is currently zoned. A-,2.
Approximately 45 parcels now exist in the project study area. A.
total of 15 residences have been constructed to date on different
parcels:
lb, 3b There will be additional compaction and overcovering of
thesoil from the use of the roads leading up to he access points
and from possible widening And paving of the roads in the futures
The public road. connections will open up some new areas for
residential and other land uses ;which will result in covering the
soils with impervious m,'Iteria!8. The rate and amount of storm
runoff may subr tantally increase. The soils in this area are
generally scab land, rough broken and stony land or Aiken clay
loam. Natural drainage of these soils is fair to good:
Appendix V 6 Page 7a of 8 '
lcs Additional grading will be needed at the three proposed
access points onto Highway 32 in order to comply with CALTRANS.
road improvement standards.
le A modere'.e to high erosion potential exists in these areas.
Approval of this project would not in itself cause erosion;
however subsequent projects such as road reconstructions, road
extensions and land divisions will be reviewed as to their
potential environmental effects. mitigation measures for erosion
can be proposed and implemented for specific projects as deemed
necessary.
1f', 3e: The project is not expected to significantly affect
Little Chico Creek with respect to sedimentation, erosion or
water quality. The California Regional Oster Quality ';ontrol
Boar and the Cal { fornia Departai-tit, ---ind "ame have
jurisdicition over activities around Little Chico Creek. Any
potential or known problems as to siltation or water quality in
the future will be referred to those agencies for prr:per action.
lg A +moderate landslide risk is a potential geologic hazard in
the Little Chico Creek canyon area where steep slopes of 407. or
more p-,redominate.
2a,; An incremental reduction of ambient air qualiy is likely to
result. The areaa to be served by the road conncections are
partially developed for residential use at the present time. Up
to 45 parcels, ranging in size from five to l60 acres or more
would initally be served.
3f dater availability is a limiting factor to growth in the
foothill areas. Productive wells on a sustained basis cannot be
obtained in some locations. Community water supply systems could
possibly be created to accomodate residential growth in areas
where ground mater is not available.
Obi There are no known rare or endangered plants recorded in the
vicinity of the road connections. Individual propertiej which
may be divided in the areas to be served by the now public road
accp'— ,rould be subject to :further review as to the plant life.
A cogmprehensive survey of the plant species by a qualified
botanist should be undertaken prior to public road improvements
or subdivision of the area. The riparian habitat along Little
Chico Cfeek is a valuable resource which s'ould be preset'ved as
development occurs.
5di The project will affect wildlife habitat in that providing
public accessto new areas will result in development which will
remove some plant life:
Appendix 1; Page 7b of 8
89 lld: The proposal will not substantially alter the planned
use of the area. Large lot zoning (minimum of 40 acres) is
recommended for the areas zoned A-2 (General) in the land use
category Grazing and Open Land, and zones requiring a minimum of
5 to 10 acres is recommended for parcels zoned A-2 in the land
use category Agricultural -Residential. These lot sizes would
reflect the planned land use of residential and open land. The
thin soils, lava cap condition and bedrock near the surface in
places require large; parcel sizes to accomodate septic systems,
while steep slopes, marginal roads and high erosion and fire
hazards place additional constraints residential development.
13a As mentioned in item 2a, about 45 parcels would initially be
served by the three road connections.
unt of t
generation by residences on these lots isenot oexpected rtofic be
great and should be adequately accomodatedby Highway 32.
Maximum buildout would potentially generate a'much greater volume
Of traffic, substantially incr-, ww
mo��ements o - „'ie .a." of tul"
nto and frn- .KghA,,n
Current traffic counts on Highway 32 in the area of the three
proposed road connection's show average daily traffic (ADT)
ranging from 1,500 to 2,200 (1981 CALTRANS figures). The peak.
month showed ADT of 3,050, while the peak hour had a traffic
count of 360.
13c, 13d: The three public road connections are not expected to
have an immediate impact on Highway 32. However, as buildout
occurs, new circulation patterns may be created as roads are
constructed to connect with the existing private roadways.
13f All of the road connections have good sight distance (200+
feet) for motor vehicles. Traffic hazards will undoubtedly
increase as a result of cumulative inareases of traffic volume on
Highway 32 in the Forest Ranch area, Land increased turning
movements at the proposed road connections.
14a, lob: Public services will be affected as r,ew areas are
opened up for residential use and development. The lack of
adequate public services in the immediate area such as police and
fire protection may be a limiting factt,L o grrowth. Response
times ;from the Forest Ranch Volunteer Fire )apartment and Butte
County/CDF Fire Station are estimated at 10-15 minutes just to
the road connections. The nearest other major public services
are now only available in Chico.
15a: The proposal would increase energy a .- ;061 usage due to
the new residential uses that would be estaL.
approval of the road cohnections by the State subsequent n.
�,; Commission.
20: Significant archaeological and historical §11- may exist in
tilt areas that would be served by the toad cOh0eutiOfis. This
project will not directly affect any recorded archaeological or
historical sites in the areas im mediately impacted by public
i,mproVemettts Future projects road
in the areas affected will often
AppendiX F page 7c of 8